Kurosawa and Miyazaki: Good Reasons to Start Watching Foreign Films

This week is a little slow on the new release front, and I'm bogged down with final classwork before I graduate; this being the case, I'm going to skip attending a movie this week and make a quick plug for foreign cinema.  Ignoring a few exceptions that have gained mainstream recognition (Pan's Labyrinth, Amelie), the average American moviegoer doesn't often bother watching foreign films.  While making an effort to expand my repertoire of cinematic knowledge, I've become more and more interested foreign films.  The differences in style, substance, and composition are fascinating.  Mostly though, I just love getting glimpses into other cultures and their artistic values.

Though I've watched films from many different countries in the past few years (Sweden, Italy, France, Germany, etc.) I've found myself drawn in particular to Japanese cinema.  So far, I've sampled a large selection of works from two influential Japanese directors: Akira Kurosawa and Hayao Miyazaki.  The films made by these two directors have had a great effect on American cinema, and  are very accessible due to their relatable themes and engrossing cinematic style.

Kurosawa (1910-1998) was a pioneer for Japanese cinema, and he was held in very high regard by many  American filmmakers who often drew upon his work.  A Fistful of Dollars was adapted from Yojimbo, Seven Samurai became The Magnificent Seven, and The Hidden Fortress was a major source of inspiration for the original Star Wars. 

So far I have viewed two of his films. Throne of Blood, is a retelling of Shakespeare's Macbeth.  Set in feudal Japan, a commander named Washizu rises to power after having a prophecy told to him by an evil forest spirit.  Washizu, played by the renowned Toshirô Mifune, is a compelling lead for the familiar tale.  The film has a very slow and deliberate pace, focusing on Washizu's inner conflict and the inevitable ways in which his schemes unravel.  This pace may be off-putting to certain fast-paced modern sensibilities, but the familiar story makes this movie an accessable option for American viewers.

Seven Samurai is a fantastic film about a group of out-of-work samurai who are hired to defend an isolated village from raiders.  What made this film work for me was the varied and strong cast, the camaraderie the group of samurai builds as they struggle to do their duty.  The comic relief character, Kikuchiyo, stole the show for me, though this is probably due to the fact that he reminded me of an old elementary school friend.  The battle scenes are elaborate in scope and well-executed; they have a sense of reality and consequence that current films often fail to capture.  This film is a true epic and is not to be missed.  It's run time clocks in at a hefty 2 hrs 40 mins, but I was sucked in for the ride and hardly noticed the time going by at all.  This is a must-see in my books.

Master of an entirely different genre, Hayao Miyazaki is a Japanese animator whose films resonate with Japanese and American viewers alike.  His movies have been nominated for several academy awards, including his 2003 winner for Best Animated Feature, Spirited Away.   Whether illustrating children's movies or mature action epics, Miyazaki's unique visual style is well worth looking in to.  At this point I've seen a good chunk of his filmography, only missing one or two of his notable films.  I've yet to see a film of his that I didn't enjoy on some level --even lesser entries like Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind are so visually fantastic that a stilted storyline is easily overlooked.  Far and beyond, my two favorite Miyazaki movies are Spirited Away and Princess Mononoke.

Spirited Away is the story of a young girl named Chihiro who, on her way to move to her new home in the suburbs, becomes lost in a world of spirits and monsters.  Her parents are turned into pigs by an old which, and Chihiro is forced to work in a bathhouse to earn their freedom.  As strange and unfamiliar as the visuals of this movie may seem, this movie has genuine heart and beauty as Chihiro comes in to her own and works toward her goals.  Spirited Away is a wonderful tale appropriate for a family viewing (so long as the kids aren't too young- there is some disturbing imagery throughout).

Every hand-animated frame of the movie is alive with incredible detail and action, and there is always something new to see on repeated viewings.  I first saw this film on television at 3 a.m. one lonely summer night.  Groggy but unable to sleep at the start of the film, I was immediately entranced and struck by this films emotional power and message.  It's a difficult feeling to describe.  Suffice it to say this film holds a special place in my heart.

Princess Mononoke one of Miyazaki's more adult films.  A young man named Ashitaka searches for a cure to the curse placed upon him by a corrupted boar god.  Along the way, he becomes entrenched in a struggle between an industrious mining town and San, a mysterious girl who leads the creatures of the forest to attack the people destroying their habitats.  The film has a decidedly environmentalist message, and its depictions of war and violence earns it a PG-13 rating.  Whether you're in the mood for a child's coming-of-age tale or for feudal battles and fantastic creatures, Miyazaki has a film to sate your appetite.

The vast majority of Miyazaki's films have been released on DVD in America through Studio Ghibli, a branch of Pixar.  Though I'm not usually one for dubbed films, the English voice tracks for Miyazaki's films are of fine quality and star A-list actors such as Liam Neeson, Patrick Stewart, and Uma Thurman.  If you can't stand subtitles, you can't go wrong with Studio Ghibli's English renditions of Miyazaki's works.

Well, there you have it.  If you're itching for something outside of the Hollywood norm the next to you want to watch a movie, I strongly recommend the four movies I've detailed here.  Be adventurous and explore these movies: I promise you they're unlike anything you've seen before.  Who knows? Maybe they'll spark a passion to explore other foreign films as well.
 

REVIEW: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I

J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter book series is widely credited for its broad appeal, imaginative characters, and thrilling narrative.  Though the film adaptations of the series (the first of which was released in 2001) have sported a spot-on cast and brilliant visuals throughout, the majority of the movies have failed to fully grasp the depth and intricacy of the series’ storyline and emotional appeal.  When it was announced that the final Potter book would be split into two films in order to do the story justice, fans of the series rejoiced.  Harry Potter andthe Deathly Hallows: Part I (out on DVD this week) is by far the best Harry Potter movie to date, and is a testament to the benefits of giving a film adaptation time to fully explore its source material. 

 

This far into the film series, it would be futile to sum up previous events.  Suffice it to say Deathly Hallows: Part I continues to follow young wizards Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) in their fight against the evil Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes).  On the run from malicious forces, they leave their friends, family, and beloved school behind as they search for six objects that may hold the key to Voldemort’s destruction.  

  

The film plays catch-up in its first few scenes, rapidly introducing characters crucial to the plot that the filmmakers had neglected to introduce in previous movies.  However, this is done much more delicately than I had expected, the introductions scattered among reunions with beloved and familiar characters from throughout the series.  The plot flows seamlessly from that point on, striking an excellent balance between action and suspense.

It has been an incredible thing these past ten years to watch the three young stars of the series grow older and mature in their skills as actors.  Harry, Ron and Hermione spend much of the movie in hiding, cut off from the rest of the world as they plan their next course of action.  While a good deal of the character development in the previous films was driven solely by plot and action, Deathly Hallows: Part I focuses much more upon atmosphere and emotion, allowing Radcliffe, Grint, and Watson to build upon the relationships of their characters like never before.  For instance, the scene where Ron must confront a manifestation of his insecurities and nightmares is stunning in both its power and by how far the filmmakers were willing to go to visualize Ron’s worst fears.

The movie surpasses its predecessors in art direction and special effects, as well.  Having left the fantastical halls of Hogwarts behind, Harry’s magical battles for survival are all the more potent in their contrast with the realistic confines of London diners and alleyways in which he finds himself confronted.  CG characters Dobby and Kreacher are top-knotch, and an unexpected animated folktale narrated by Hermione toward the end of the film is spectacular in its visual simplicity.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I is the Potter film fans have been waiting for.  With it’s dark atmosphere, tight script, and talented cast, it is the first Potter movie that may actually surpass the quality of its source material.  If Part II can live up to this precedent, only time will tell.  I grew up alongside these characters with every new book release, and it’s going to be hard for me to say goodbye once the last movie has its run.  But for now, I’m content that one a much beloved series seems to be ending on a high note.

REVIEW: Hanna

A stag trundles through a barren wooded landscape.  Flitting from tree to tree, a small blond figure with a bow stalks behind it for a few moments before firing and killing it with one shot.  So begins Hanna, a movie about a young girl (Saoirse Ronan) who has been trained for years in isolation by her father (Erik Bana) to be a skilled and efficient assassin-- all so that she can kill Marissa (Cate Blanchett), the leader of a defunct secret government agency.  For those of you who saw last year's superhero spoof Kick-Ass, Hanna is for all intents and purposes Hit Girl: The Movie.  There are plenty of ways this film could have made its premise unique and interesting.  However, thanks to a threadbare driving narrative, inconsistent characters, and occasionally lazy camerawork,  Hanna is an unremarkable action adventure that chokes on genre cliches.

So what do I mean by non-existent plot? Well, around ten minutes into the movie Hanna's father produces a transceiver that, when turned on, will alert their enemies as to their location-- supposedly in the hopes that Hanna will be taken into custody and given an opportunity to kill their unsuspecting target.  This is precisely what happens, except that Hanna kills a decoy, and thus spends most of the movie on the run, thinking her mission has been completed.  The problem is, the audience isn't given any reason why Marissa needs to die, or what the point of Hanna's whole mission was to begin with.  A few details are filled in toward the end of the movie, but these only raise more questions; the film's abrupt ending lacks closure and significance because of this lack of emotional investment.

While Hanna is on the run in Europe, she tags along with a vacationing family, befriending the teenage daughter Sophie (Jessica Barden).  This family is meant to show what sort of relationships Hanna has missed out on living isolated in the wilderness, but they come off as either dense or (in Sophie's case) shallow and vapid.  Other than that, the actors do a fairly decent job of working with the script they were given.  Ronan has a good deal of screen presence for her age.  Tom Hollander's portrayal of the preened and sweatsuit-wearing hitman Isaacs is genuinely creepy and makes for the only interesting villain the film has to offer.

But at least the movie will have some good action, right? Well, sort of.  What fight scenes there are are well choreographed, but they're few and far between.  The movie relies much more on other action movie mainstays than anything else: the sterile "boardroom of evil" exposition scene, characters that are introduced and killed in the same scene, the government agent calling in a favor to an old friend, the ridiculously-conspicuous-henchman-follows-the-hero scene, and the hero's uncanny ability to ignore the negative consequences of having a bullet lodged in her gut... to name a few.

Hanna struggles to find its driving theme or identity.  There's not enough action to make it a popcorn-flick, and the complete lack of character growth ensures that it can't be considered a character piece either.  Save your money for now: there are plenty of promising summer blockbusters on the horizon.

The Hunger Games films: Next big teen sensation?

The critically-acclaimed young-adult trilogy The Hunger Games, written by Suzanne Collins, has for the past few years been a best-selling hit among teens and adults alike.  As of this moment, Lionsgate is gearing up for a film adaptation of the series in the hopes that it will become the next Harry Potter or Twilight sensation.  Now that the principle cast has been announced, I'll be taking this opportunity to provide a crash-course on the first book in the series, an analysis of who has been cast in the lead roles, and some predictions about the series' future.

It just so happens that earlier this year I worked my way through the series myself- they're fantastic, whatever age you are.  So: The Hunger Games is a science fiction tale set in North America in a war-ravaged future.  The United States have been decimated; out of its ashes several small districts rose into existence.  Over time they were subjugated by the oppressive Capitol and were formed into the collective nation of Panem.  As a means of keeping these districts demoralized and in-line, the Capitol holds an annual lottery among the teenagers of each district, eventually selecting one male and one female per district.  The "winners" of this lottery are forced to compete in the Hunger Games: a survival competition where the contestants are placed into an arena (filled with harsh environments and deadly traps) and must fight each other to the death until there is only one victor remaining.

Meet Katniss Everdeen: a 16-year-old from Panem's poorest district, District Twelve.  When her younger sister Prim is selected to compete in the Hunger Games, Katniss volunteers to take her place.  Along with District Twelve's other competitor, a baker's son named Peeta, Katniss must travel to the Capitol and prepare herself for a fight against contestants from the richer districts that have trained for the Hunger Games their entire lives.  Though Peeta aids Katniss in her training, once she's thrown in the arena, Katniss must survive by relying only on herself; there can only one contestant out of twenty four can walk out alive, after all.

Now, given the popularity of these books, it's easy to imagine the giant dollar signs that are sparkling in the eyes of the Lionsgate executives right now.  There's everything they need in this series to make a Twilight-esque success story out of this series, most obviously through the fact that there is a series-long  love-triangle between Katniss, Peeta, and Katniss's best friend from back home, Gale).

Let me stop all of you right here and clear something up: no matter what these execs seem to think, these books are nothing like Twilight.  Katniss is a strong, powerful protagonist that actually a definable personality, unlike a certain Mrs. Edward Cullen.  Though there is the love-triangle subplot, the focus of the series is on Katniss's continued struggles and defiance against the totalitarian Panem government.  Make no mistake, these books are brutal in their depiction of wartime violence and the atrocities that humanity is capable of.  And it is 100% completely devoid of sparkly vampires.

Now that that's off my chest, let's move on.  Even though these books are infinitely more mature, intelligent and powerful than Twilight, that doesn't stop the fact that Twilight wins big at the box office.  I have no doubts at all that in a few years time, The Hunger Games is going to be topping box office charts.  However, it is all too easy to see a Hunger Games movie trilogy that has been completely re-tooled to capitalize on teenage angsty love.   I really hope that I'm wrong in predicting this; I truly hope that these books get the adaptation they deserve.  It's hard to be sure though, with the announcement of who will be playing the male leads, Peeta and Gale.

A while back it was announced that Jennifer Lawrence will be playing the role of Katniss.  She looks nothing like Katniss is described in the book and is too old, but hey: she's been nominated for an Oscar.  A role like Katniss needs someone who has the chops to handle the emotion behind the character, and not just be a vapid stand-in.  The men, on the other hand... well, them I'm not so sure about. According to official sources, the pair were cast for their chemistry with Lawrence; this is necessary, to be sure, but it worries me that this immediate emphasis on attraction legitimizes some of my concerns.  Josh Hutcherson (The Kids are All Right) will be playing Peeta, while Liam Hemsworth (of Knowing... "fame") will be playing Gale.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions... on one hand, it's good that they cast relative-unknowns: these roles will, in all honesty, likely be their defining roles for years to come.  However, with such little cumulative acting experience this big-budget production could be starting down a rocky road.  Without quality actors to give these characters some heart and depth, this story could easily devolve into a brain-dead action-romance.  I, for one, am hoping that they don't mess this up.

REVIEW: Sucker Punch

Dawn of the Dead.  300.  Watchmen.  The Owls of Ga'Hoole.   These are the four major films Zach Snyder has previously directed, and they all have something in common: they're adaptations.  300 and Watchmen were originally graphic novels, Ga'Hoole was inspired by a popular young adult book series, and Dawn of the Dead was, of course, based off of the 1978 original.  Snyder's unique visual style helped bring these adaptations to life onscreen in a way no one else could have.  His talent lies in presentation and adaptation, not original storytelling.  So what, you might ask, is Zach Snyder doing with a screenwriting credit in his latest film, Sucker Punch?  I'd like to know that myself right about now.

I can only assume this movie was named for what you want to do to the ticket vendor when you walk out of the theater.

On paper, Sucker Punch sounds like an ideal template for Snyder to work his slo-mo action magic: a young girl nicknamed Baby Doll (Emily Browning) is wrongly committed to an all-female insane asylum by her evil step-father, where she retreats into worlds of her own imagining in order to devise an escape plan.  The problem is, what could have been an intense exploration of the power of imagination turns out to be four incredible action set pieces that are each bookend-ed by coma-inducing exposition scenes that reach new levels of cinematic ineptitude.

What the movie trailers don't tell you about this film is that Baby Doll's imagination doesn't take her straight from the asylum into the action sequences that represent her escape.  Instead of imagining a world that makes her feel powerful and in control, Baby Doll mentally retreats from the asylum by imagining it to be a burlesque house where she and the other women are routinely whored out to patrons by the business's abusive owner (Oscar Isaac).  How exactly is being an unwillingly prostitute a better situation than being trapped in an insane asylum?  Sure doesn't seem like a comfortable daydream to me.  Snyder himself said that this film is an examination of female exploitation in a completely non-exploitative way.  I'm not even going to try and illustrate how many ways that isn't true.

Anyway, in this fantasy burlesque house, all the women are trained to perform sultry dances; when Baby Doll is forced to dance, we get treated to an Inception-esque shift into a second level of fantasy- Baby Doll's dance is represented by a snowy scene where she battles ten-foot-tall samurai warriors that wield gatling guns.  I kid you not.

Before the battle, Baby Doll is told by a mysterious old man her brain made up that she needs to collect four items to escape the asylum.  The rest of the movie follows this formula: Baby Doll "dances" (insert random action sequence here) to distract oafish asylum workers while the other girls steal the items she needs.  But wait... if the action scenes represent her dancing in the burlesque house, what does her dancing represent in the real-life asylum?

We hardly see anything about her actual life in the asylum- the entire "plot" unfolds in the burlesque house.  However, since that scenario isn't real, I didn't care about what happened to any of the characters.  Why couldn't the action scenes just be a symbol for what she did in the asylum itself?  Why did the burlesque house have to be in the movie at all?  Everything is overly complicated, especially considering that the dialogue is written with the subtlety of a... well, of a ten-foot-tall-gatling-gun-toting samurai. 

Yes, the action scenes are impressive and imaginative, and they wowed me in a way that cg effects hardly ever do anymore.  But with a director-written script as lazy, convoluted, and downright awful as Sucker Punch's, there's no reason to care about anything that's happening.  Thankfully, Zach Snyder's next film, Superman: Man of Steel, is a return to what he does best: riding to success on the shoulders of pre-existing intellectual properties.

REVIEW: Paul

Comedy writers Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have made a name for themselves spoofing popular movie genres with their zombie-comedy Shaun of the Dead and buddy-cop parody Hot Fuzz.  In Paul, the duo take on the science fiction/alien genre... or begin to, at least.  Within the first ten minutes of the film, British sci-fi nerd Graeme (Pegg) marvels at being in America and asks his friend Clive (Frost) "Can you believe we're really here?"  While Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead were decidedly British in their comedic choices, Pegg and Frost claim they tried to give Paul a much more 'American' sensibility.  While there are a few good characters and plenty of great moments in the film, Paul is ultimately dragged down by its attempt to pander to a wider audience.

Paul focuses on Graeme and Clive's American road trip, which starts with Comic Con and is followed by visits to a series of UFO and conspiracy-theory hot spots.  Along the way, they witness a car crash and meet up with its driver, Paul (Seth Rogan): a down-to-earth extra-terrestrial on the run from government agents.  Rogan's delivery goes a long way in making his hitchhiking alien likable, and the computer animation that brings him to life isn't intrusive or noticeable.  Pegg and Frost have great chemistry onscreen as always, and Rogan's Paul makes an excellent third-party to their banter.

The movie is at its best when it's doing what it was conceived to do: spoof sci-fi and nerd culture.  Paul delights in mocking or playing along with plenty of alien stereotypes, and there's a great subplot about the ways he's secretly influenced pop-culture since his arrival several decades back.  It's the parts of Paul that try to capture 'American humor' that make it a less-than-impressive successor to Pegg and Frost's previous films.

Apparently, what it takes to be funny in America boils down to a few key comedic devices: penis jokes, homophobia, hillbilly Christians, and bucketfuls of pointless, nonsensical cursing.  A great deal of the humor is heavy-handed and obvious.  At one point, Paul gives Graeme's love-interest, Ruth (Kristen Wiig), advice on her haphazard swearing.  "You've got to pick your moments," he says.  The movie should have taken its own advice.  To make matters worse, Pegg and Frost's writing isn't nearly as tight and structured as usual.  In the final third of the movie at least three supporting characters make behavior shifts that don't make any sense at all.

Paul starts out strong with excellent acting, surprising cameos and supporting roles, as well as by cleverly spoofing a played-out genre.  I'm sure plenty of you will love this movie; just don't go in expecting the subtlety of Pegg and Frost's previous works.  It doesn't take long for the film to devolve into a stereotypical example of the crude status quo of American humor.