So I'm watching the remake of Flight of the Phoenix, and I'm having some issues.

First off, it's very true to the original, right down to the deliberate pacing and panoramic camera shots; lots of wide angles and long takes. So it begs the question why it should be remade. I generally feel that if a remake cannot improve upon the original, it should not be made. Just because audiences are pansies and refuse to watch films made before 1980 doesn't mean that we should cater to their philistinism (it's a word, I looked it up).

While I do appreciate the new cast including Hugh Laurie and New Hotness...I mean, Miranda Otto, the original featured Richard Attenborough and a rugged James Stewart. Not shabby.


Second, while I think Giovanni Ribisi does a really good job embodying his awkward and creepy character, Elliott, there is no reason for the blind hatred the rest of the people have for him. From the minute he appears on screen, everyone tries their hardest to ignore him and pretend he doesn't exist while silently and secretly brooding about how disgusted they are with him. For what reason?

Now, if you're familiar with the original, you'll know that the "Elliott" character was actually the German "Heinrich," and while I'm not entirely up on my German history after 1945, I can definitely tell you that even in 1965, there was a whole lot of animosity and hatred toward the Germans. This is especially prominent in the scene when Heinrich/Elliott kills the injured Nomad. In the new version, it's easy to sympathize with Elliott because although he took a life, he also put a man out of his misery and saved them a large portion of water. In the original, however, it's appropriate for the people to overreact to this seemingly senseless bit of violence and utter inhumanity. Heinrich is a monster and a beast, regardless of saving them water, because his aggression is remnant of the German aggression in WWII. Additionally, when they discover the truth about Heinrich's designs, they become unreasonably angry because he misled them and lied to them after they had gone out on a limb to trust him. There's a whole cultural and social battle that erupts in these two scenes that is absolutely impossible to replicate as presented in the new version. The closest they could have come would have been to make Elliott's character something seemingly dark and violent, something people hate based on principle...like a pedophile or Arab terrorist.


As it is, it doesn't work. As I mentioned before, a film should only be remade if it can be improved upon--not made to be the same, and definitely not made to be any worse.

However, it is well shot, especially coloristically and compositionally, and well acted, particularly Giovanni Ribisi...even if his character sucked. Overall, it's an interesting film, even if it's been lobotomized.

Dudes.

Either Fandango is fucked up, or the Regal near me switched out all their film projectors with digital overnight.

Crazy.

[EDIT: Fandango was fucked up. All is normal.]

I'm not sure how I feel about converting all films to digital. In fact, I'm not sure how I feel about the increasingly digital age. I understand that high-def products give a bright, crisp clarity not available through film...but what if you don't want bright, crisp clarity? Digital works, to me, often seem to distance the audience and lack the engaging qualities film has offered for the last 100+ years.

It's the same with the loss of hand animation. There's a quality in classic Disney animated features that can't be reconstructed with digital means. Take Winnie the Pooh for example. I much prefer the hand-drawn cartoons to the new, computer-constructed images. I used to want to reach out and hug that cuddly, overstuffed bear...now, it's just feels a little fake and creepy.

I understand that digital is offering a great amount of opportunities and generally cheaper means, I just hope that we don't end up with everything in a cold, detached digital world.

----

Also, (and similarly,) I watched 12 Monkeys last night, which is absolutely fabulous. Many similarities to Brazil which I felt took away from the creativity, but it was so interesting and well done. It makes me lament the loss of Man of La Mancha even more. I mean...Terry Gilliam + Johnny Depp? That would have been SO good. (PS - if you don't understand what I'm talking about, rent the documentary Lost in La Mancha. It's excellent.)

----

And speaking of documentaries, I'm currently watching Air Guitar Nation, which is quite reminiscent of The King of Kong. While it's not quite as engaging, it is quite solid and quite awesome. Essentially, it's about people competing in the US Air Guitar Championship for a spot in the World Championships of Air Guitar in Finland. There's this great dichotomy between how seriously the contestants take air guitar and how they know that it's a complete joke. Excellent subject matter.

Days go by quite quickly when they are spent in movie theaters.

Indeed, I was out of the apartment from 1:30pm until 8:30pm. Part of that was drive time and there was an hour between when one ended and the other began, but still.

I did see The Darjeeling Limited, which I found enjoyable and engaging. I really like Adrien Brody, and Jason Schwartzman is just awesome. I recommended it. The companion short film, Hotel Chevalier with Schwartzman and Natalie Portman, is available for free from iTunes (accessible through www.hotelchevalier.com). Director Wes Anderson recommends watching it before seeing The Darjeeling Limited.

I also saw Lust, Caution and the jury's still out. It was a very typical narrative, not overly dramatic nor a sweeping epic, really. It was long to be sure (2 hours, 37 minutes), and felt it at times. I was also disappointed in the ending, and I have yet to come up with a satisfactory explanation for that. That said, it was a captivating story with very interesting characters whose actions left me thinking. It was certainly well acted and well directed.


Also, I find it funny that I was carded buying a ticket for The Darjeeling Limited (apparently I look 16?), but not for Lust, Caution, which is rated NC-17. Then again...it's the Regal versus the Enzian.

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang is so awesome. It a succeeds in all the ways that Hollywoodland and The Black Dahlia failed (I'm associating these based on similar genre and release dates).

I love the Film Noir genre. I love Neo-noir (assuming that such a genre can exist given that Noir necessarily not "neo," but that's an ontological argument for film scholars to embark upon). But I'm getting off topic...Neo-noir films are often failures. I can think of three successes: Chinatown (the original "Neo-noir"), L.A. Confidential, and Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang.

Other than that, they're terrible. They are unimaginative, lack purpose, and are entirely disconnected with what it means to be a film noir.


It reminds me of Neoclassicism and Jacques-Louis David, actually. David created works that recalled Classicism not only in style and technique, but, most importantly, intention. He wanted to bring back the moral order of Antiquity, more than simply a pattern for his paintings. Other Neoclassicists mimicked Classical sources and style, but lacked the same concern for renewing Classical virtue (aka...they lacked intention).

In one of the best scenes in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, Harry is hiding under the pink-haired girl's bed, right before she is killed. The girl gets on the bed, and the man with her sits on the edge, but keeps one foot on the floor. This is a reference to the Production Code and the restrictions facing Hollywood films between 1930 and 1960...one such rule was that if a man and woman were seen on a bed together, one foot had to remain on the floor at all times.

It's homage and referential, but never even approaches tacky parody.

Brilliance.

I just caught the end of Brokeback Mountain.

God, I forgot how devastating the end of that movie is. Of course, I tuned in right as Ennis calls Lureen, and she has to tell him what happened to Jack (my favorite part, actually. Anne Hathaway is absolutely brilliant and that moment is just incredible). And then he goes to Jack's parents house and finds the two shirts, hanging together, and it's just...devastating.


Alright, now since my class was cancelled, I'd be a damned fool not to get some real work done, so I'm going to actually work on my big paper. I've been putting it off all week, and I can't procrastinate any longer.

But now I'm feeling all sad about the Brokeback...

My first class this morning was cancelled, which was excellent and made me very glad that the first thing I do after getting out of bed in the morning is check my email. Thus, I went back to sleep for another hour and a half. Excellent.

----

And in my film class, we watched Searching for Debra Winger, which I've been meaning to see for a couple years now. It was by no means exceptional filmmaking, but did provide really interesting insight into the lives of working women in Hollywood and abroad. So many awesome interviews, it was really stunning.

The downside, I feel, is that Rosanna Arquette (director and documentarian) knew the general outcome of her questions and interviews before she started, so there is no real insight gained. Rather, she found women experiencing the same thing she was experiencing and many of the interviews were the same. Yes, it's difficult to manage a career and a family, especially when you're reaching (or beyond) the age of 40 and movie roles are extremely limited. It lacked a great deal of creativity. I almost wish she had found something new to focus on, or asked for specific solutions these women have found (Robin Wright Penn mentioned making only one film a year so that she could spend 10 months at home with her 2 children). Very few interviews yielded something beyond the basic statement that it's hard to be a working mother.

----

I decided to be bold and make dinner this evening, and I concocted a baked ziti based mostly on a recipe I found on foodnetwork.com. It was decent, overall, though next time I attempt it, I will add salt and more red pepper flakes...it was a little bland.

----

Also, do you ever look at a clock or watch, see the secondhand ticking, and for a brief moment, think it should be going the other direction? I've been telling time for 17 years now, but I still occasionally think the secondhand should be moving counterclockwise. Why do you suppose that is?