I went to Sasquatch which messed up my posting schedule even more. I'll slowly get back to a more regular rhythm though. This week's post sees the end of two television seasons for two very similar comedies that I do end up comparing a bit. There is also one very good 2011 movie (from Wales) and one great American movie that will probably be one of the few poetic and beautiful movies you will see from a Texan director. Watch out for the next post, which will include my favorite movie of the year so far.
The Office (Greg Daniels, 2010-2011): Some say that the show got revitalized during this past season, which was Steve Carrell's last. I don't think that can be true, for the sole reason that most of this season had nothing to do with him leaving. It's only the last like 25% of the season that really dealt with that, and even those I thought were up and down. In general, I will always like this show because of my connection and knowledge of the characters. I know how they act and have a great feel for what is out of character for them, and in character, I know them so well I would be okay with just watching them do anything. A lot of the jokes work because I know these people so well. Trying to get away from that though, and judging the show based on its own merits, it does not hold as well always. There are characters like Holly and Gabe that are characters that everyone will and should love with some basic knowledge of them. A lot of the episodes in the middle of the show were mostly funny, but not memorable. Towards the end, with Michael Scott's departure I think the show did get much better and it did revitalize the show for that time period. I think the best episode of the season might actually be Michael's final episode. It was memorable, not overbearing, and really effective. But now comes the question, can the show continue without him. I initially was under the impression that it definitely can, he was just one of the talented ensemble, but after seeing the 3 post-Michael episodes I have less confidence. Those episodes were some of the least effective of the whole season and they felt more like special DVD episodes for the diehard fans waiting for the next season. But it's also likely that they didn't work as well not because Michael was missing, because they just weren't written as good because of the pressure of finding a replacement. I think it is very possible that once they find a permanent replacement the show will find a consistent groove to dance to and hit its stride. I liked the idea about the show trying new replacements each episode or something, doing different things, but after seeing Will Ferrel's run on The Office as manager, I think the show just needs to find somewhere to stay as quickly as possible.
Season Grade: B-
Parks and Recreation (Michael Schur, 2010-2011): In the beginning, it was a less good version of The Office, now a few years later, Parks and Recreation is arguably even better than The Office. Better characters, and a funnier show. It's very similar to The Office stylistically, which is why it's so easy to compare the two. When The Office wasn't saying goodbye to Michael this season, it was mostly at a steady pace just going, but not doing anything special. This show however, is currently blossoming right in front of us. All the characters were becoming fully realized right in front of us this season. Leslie Knopp has become an amazingly likable character that has the right amount of charm, naivety, and smarts to be sometimes a more believable boss than Michael Scott. All the characters on this show are very charming people that never are annoying, and that's pretty impressive considering how close the characters get to being too dumb, or too mean, or just annoying. The writers and actors have found a great balance for these characters. The pretty boring six-episode first season seems was just a the writers and actors trying to find the characters, and looking back at it, it seems natural that they would need time to figure out who these people really are.
This show also features two of the most memorable and best characters on television right now, Chris Traeger and Ron Swanson. Chris is played by Rob Lowe who puts in one of the best comedic performances I've seen on television. An amazingly optimistic and healthy characters that displays everything about the characters and the show but a bit more extreme. There are a lot of happy people on this show, but Chris takes it all to a whole different level. Then you have Ron Swanson played by Nick Offerman. A staunch libertarian who is an endless quote machine. The fact that he works for the government and hates it (but sort of secretly likes it) is a great source of laughs. For the sake of time I won't even the great characters played by Aziz Ansari and Aubrey Plaza.
Parks may not be as artistically satisfying as Community for me, but the characters always supply laughs and charm on a regular basis. It's still primarily a comedy, so it's not always meaningful and charming, but for a comedy it's really some of the best character-based comedy you'll get on television.
Season Grade: A-
Submarine (Richard Ayoade, 2011): Before I saw this movie at SIFF I had heard this film being compared to Wes Anderson films, "Juno", and "500 Days of Summer". As I walked out of the theater I found myself very much liking the movie, but those comparisons were partly true. I personally love Wes Anderson films, I thought "Juno" was very good, and "500 Days of Summer" was one of the better romances of the past few years. I like quirky self-conscious films by directors that play with cinema. Director Richard Ayoade does exactly that. The film has many cinematic tricks, including fantasy sequences, archive footage, title cards, etc. But because the main character is so self-conscious of how cinematic his story is why it all works in context. The main character is a 15 year old boy dealing with typical teenage stuff like early romance, but also ends up having to deal with his parents romance as well. His mother is seeing an old friend who is now a mystic which makes his father very depressed (the mystic character is one of the few things in the film that don't work).
"Submarine" is definitely a coming-of-age film if there ever was one. He's a kid who cares very much about himself, and he does care about others, but only on the outside. Ultimately it's all for himself. Because of that he does get in trouble and he does learn things along the way. He's a very interesting and fun character, especially because of how self-conscious he is, but it is true that he's not someone completely new to cinema. Movies like "Juno" and "Harold and Maude" have similar characters. The style also mostly references other films, it's especially reminiscent of the French New Wave films, mostly Jean Luc Godard. When it comes to originality the film doesn't completely succeed as much as I would have liked, but it does have moments of brilliance and it does what it does in a fun and enjoyable fashion with focus on character. While not all the cinematic tricks have deep meaning (some do), all of them contribute to the films aesthetic, and the aesthetic in a film like this is important when it comes to contextualizing what is happening to this character and how you see this person. If you liked any of the films I mentioned in this review you should definitely check it out because you will enjoy it. It may not be a masterpiece, but it proves Ayoade is a director that has a very bright future.
Grade: B+
Days of Heaven (Terrence Malick, 1978): Make no mistake about it, Terrence Malick will eventually be known as one of the great American directors of all time. Maybe not by every single cinephile, but certainly by a substantial group of cinephiles. For me personally, he is easily up there with Martin Scorsese as one of the best American directors currently working. No one is and ever has fused cinematic poetry and art with the American landscape and culture as well as Malick. His second film, "Days of Heaven," displays everything about that last sentence (this is my second viewing of this film) Two of Malick's major themes, human technology vs. nature, and spiritual meaning, are evident in this film. The film is set in or around the Great Depression (his next two films would be set during World War II and the founding of America. Malick always dissecting American culture), and the two main characters decide to con a dying man out of his money. The story is simple, and what happens in the film is simple. What is not simple though, is how much meaning Malick gets out of that simple story. There is a strong sense of morality in what happens to these characters, a morality that is almost religious (there's a swarm of locusts in one scene).
The main characters are also farming land, and the land itself is beautifully shot as Malick is expected to do. The emphasis that is placed on nature and how beautiful the land that is being farmed is important because later on after a locust swarm the land is burned. When that land is burned, nature is dying as a result of a locust swarm that came as a result of the moral lapse of these characters (my view). There's always this sense that nature is watching over us. He has seemingly random shots of nature in many of his films, this one included, but they all give it a sense of nature vs. man in a way you haven't seen before. This is a film that has so much meaning that I wish I could get more into but for the sake of not spoiling the viewing experience I will cease from saying too much more about the plot. I saw this film once before as my first Malick film. I found the visuals breathtaking and the film memorable, but upon a second viewing now that I'm more familiar with who Malick is as a filmmaker I've found so much meaning in this film. This film is still a great starting place to get familiar with Malick, more so than his first film "Badlands," but I urge you to revisit it once you've seen his other films. It's a true masterpiece, and unlike any American film ever made.
Grade: A
No comments:
Post a Comment