Unless you live under a rock, you are aware that Disney just bought Lucasfilm, and that more Star Wars movies will definitely be put into production. With legendary creator George Lucas stepping down, what exactly does this mean for the future of this monumental franchise?
First off, let me say that I really don't think Disney will have virtually any input regarding the actual film production. The company did the same thing when they bought Marvel. They didn't even have their logo in the Avengers credits, because they simply did it as a business move. It's the same thing here, they wanted more money because they don't have enough from the enormous theme park in Orlando, or from their hundreds of movies and thousands of products they market.
That being said, the most important factor in ensuring the success of future films is selecting quality filmmakers to take up Lucas' mantle. Here are my top directors to do the job, in no particular order.
1) Christopher Nolan
2) James Cameron
3) J.J. Abrams
4) Peter Jackson
5) Guillermo del Toro
6) Joss Whedon
7) Kevin Smith
8) Alex Proyas
9) Sam Raimi
10) Steven Spielberg
11) Jon Favreau
12) Bryan Singer
13) Wachowskis
Each of these filmmakers are veterans of the science-fiction/fantasy genre, and each have things to contribute towards the Star Wars universe.
In spite of Nolan's reputation for more gritty films, I wouldn't immediately disregard him from working with a more lighthearted story. Look at Scorsese. While the legendary director is primarily known for his gangster films such as Goodfellas and Gangs of New York, he also made Hugo, which is arguably his best work. Nolan is obviously a genius at constructing quality stories, and worlds of cinematic brilliance. To me, he would definitely be a worthy successor of Lucas.
After Avatar, Cameron has proved his ability to make a remarkable sci-fi epic. The master behind Aliens and Titanic has demonstrated his spirit of imagination and wonder throughout his career. He too is an ideal choice to take on Episodes 7,8, and 9.
The only reason for Abrams not to take on this project is because he already has Star Trek under his belt. He's the Spielberg of the 21st Century, and has every quality that would give him the ability to make the next set of movies within the saga.
Jackson and Del Toro go hand in hand, as they've each made the best fantasy films of all time. Imagine the awe and wonder of Lord of the Rings and Pan's Labyrinth in the Star Wars universe. My nerd senses go crazy just thinking about it.
I wouldn't put Whedon first, but I think he would have something substantial to offer. Avengers is what fans expected for the most part, and Firefly is one of the best shows ever. With a solid script, he could do an effective job.
As for Smith, I had to put him on here since he's such a hard-core fan. While his films are very adult, putting him pretty much on Tarantino's level, he's had so much experience with the comic book world that I'd be interested in seeing what he could come up with.
Proyas is also up in the running to direct a Batman reboot, and is therefore another solid choice here. Dark City demonstrates his innate artistic ability as a storyteller, and he could just as well deliver a wide range of other great sci-fi films.
Between Evil Dead, Spider-Man, and now his upcoming Oz: The Great and Powerful, Raimi has a lot of experience in this genre. He too is a fan favorite, and is definitely worthy of making this list.
After over thirty years of filmmaking, Spielberg continues to inspire a wide range of audiences with his pictures. With the work he and Lucas have done together, there's no reason not to put him on here.
Iron Man is worthy of comparison to Batman Begins in terms of effectively exploring the origins of a superhero. Favreau was no doubt inspired by Lucas in his youth when he saw A New Hope on the big screen. This Marvel veteran is ideal to continue Lucas' legacy.
Singer's made his fair share of mistakes, but X2 is hands down one of the best superhero films, as well as one of the greatest sequels ever made. Superman Returns, while not the best, also demonstrates his potential from a cinematic perspective nonetheless.
Like Nolan and Smith, the Wachowskis would also have to tone things down to be considered. Regardless, they're obviously experts at what they do, and I think they'd have some fun with Jedi.
As far as the story goes, I personally think it should be set in the era of the Old Republic. There's a lot of areas to explore in this time period, and whoever does it has plenty of material to work with between all the books and comics on this subject.
Time will only tell the future of Star Wars, but we can only hope the next series of films don't bomb. In the meantime, I agree with many of my fellow fans in that the original unaltered trilogy should be released on Blu-Ray. I'm sick of watching Greedo fire first and all the CGI garbage in the edited versions. Until we know the outcome of these events, may the Force be with us all.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Argo
*****
Dir. Ben Affleck
Ben Affleck has made some excellent dramas and thrillers over the course of his career, and Argo is no exception. This true story of the joint American-Canadian operation to extract six American diplomats from revolutionary Iran is one of the best historical dramas of the 21st Century.
The film opens with a narrative description of the events which led to the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, and then displays a gritty and realistic depiction of the occupation of the U.S. Embassy. In spite of the 52 that spent 444 days in captivity, six escaped and were taken in by the Canadian Ambassador to Iran. When the C.I.A. finds out about this, exfiltration expert Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) proposes an idea to get them out of the country. His plan is to make the Iranian government think the hostages are Canadian filmmakers there to scout locations for a movie. Once he manages to get approval, he contacts producers Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) and John Chambers (John Goodman), friends of his who work for a Hollywood studio. The fake film they schedule to make is Argo, a science-fiction picture set in the Middle East. With the help of this crew and his partner Jack O'Donnell (Bryan Cranston), Mendez embarks on the most daring mission of his life to save these men and women.
This is one of several films Affleck has both directed and starred in; but what makes it even more gripping than ones like 2010's The Town is how it delivers the story with an incredibly emotional appeal, and a tone that will keep viewers on the edge of their seats throughout.
Chris Terrio's script provides the basis for Affleck's artistic direction. In spite of this being a Hollywood thriller, Terrio puts such emphasis on his characters that the action itself proves to be a less significant component of the film's success. While the main story is centered around the mission, there are some great subplots involving the hostages, as well as Mendez's relationship with his wife and son. From the opening sequence to the climactic finale, audiences are immersed in both the characters and the distorted world which they find themselves in.
From a cinematic standpoint, it's quite remarkable how Affleck makes you feel a part of the story. By implementing actual footage from the events depicted into the film, and at appropriate times, history is brought alive. Using primarily low-key lighting and a good number of close-up shots, the dramatic plot-line is made all the more intense. This is a dismal atmosphere in a time of fear and confusion, and Affleck utilizes a wide range of elements to make viewers connect with these characters' lives on an emotional level.
Acting wise, it couldn't have been better casted. Cranston and Affleck embrace their roles with a spirit of fierce determination. There's a scene at the end after the hostages have made it out, where Cranston's display of joy and relief is very reminiscent of Ed Harris' performance in Ron Howard's Apollo 13. Goodman and Arkin also give great performances, as their characters provide the film with a humorous element, while still maintaining serious objectives and motivations. Other noteworthy actors include Victor Garber as Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor, and Kyle Chandler as C.I.A. operative Hamilton Jordan.
All in all, this film is nothing short of breathtaking, presenting itself as a unique and brilliantly constructed thriller, after a series of flashy and unoriginal action movies over the last few years. Two thumbs way up.
Dir. Ben Affleck
Ben Affleck has made some excellent dramas and thrillers over the course of his career, and Argo is no exception. This true story of the joint American-Canadian operation to extract six American diplomats from revolutionary Iran is one of the best historical dramas of the 21st Century.
The film opens with a narrative description of the events which led to the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, and then displays a gritty and realistic depiction of the occupation of the U.S. Embassy. In spite of the 52 that spent 444 days in captivity, six escaped and were taken in by the Canadian Ambassador to Iran. When the C.I.A. finds out about this, exfiltration expert Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) proposes an idea to get them out of the country. His plan is to make the Iranian government think the hostages are Canadian filmmakers there to scout locations for a movie. Once he manages to get approval, he contacts producers Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) and John Chambers (John Goodman), friends of his who work for a Hollywood studio. The fake film they schedule to make is Argo, a science-fiction picture set in the Middle East. With the help of this crew and his partner Jack O'Donnell (Bryan Cranston), Mendez embarks on the most daring mission of his life to save these men and women.
This is one of several films Affleck has both directed and starred in; but what makes it even more gripping than ones like 2010's The Town is how it delivers the story with an incredibly emotional appeal, and a tone that will keep viewers on the edge of their seats throughout.
Chris Terrio's script provides the basis for Affleck's artistic direction. In spite of this being a Hollywood thriller, Terrio puts such emphasis on his characters that the action itself proves to be a less significant component of the film's success. While the main story is centered around the mission, there are some great subplots involving the hostages, as well as Mendez's relationship with his wife and son. From the opening sequence to the climactic finale, audiences are immersed in both the characters and the distorted world which they find themselves in.
From a cinematic standpoint, it's quite remarkable how Affleck makes you feel a part of the story. By implementing actual footage from the events depicted into the film, and at appropriate times, history is brought alive. Using primarily low-key lighting and a good number of close-up shots, the dramatic plot-line is made all the more intense. This is a dismal atmosphere in a time of fear and confusion, and Affleck utilizes a wide range of elements to make viewers connect with these characters' lives on an emotional level.
Acting wise, it couldn't have been better casted. Cranston and Affleck embrace their roles with a spirit of fierce determination. There's a scene at the end after the hostages have made it out, where Cranston's display of joy and relief is very reminiscent of Ed Harris' performance in Ron Howard's Apollo 13. Goodman and Arkin also give great performances, as their characters provide the film with a humorous element, while still maintaining serious objectives and motivations. Other noteworthy actors include Victor Garber as Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor, and Kyle Chandler as C.I.A. operative Hamilton Jordan.
All in all, this film is nothing short of breathtaking, presenting itself as a unique and brilliantly constructed thriller, after a series of flashy and unoriginal action movies over the last few years. Two thumbs way up.
Monday, October 22, 2012
DC News: Justice League is in the Works
On June 6, DC and Warner Bros. officially announced that a Justice League film is set to arrive in theaters in the summer of 2015, which is also when Marvel is scheduled to release Avengers 2. If this does indeed happen, it's obvious that DC is going ahead without first making movies for individual superheroes, such as Flash and Wonder Woman. Also, Nolan's Batman will not be featured, making yet another reboot of the character inevitable. I thought I'd share my thoughts on this project, and where I think it'll go.
First off, let me go ahead and share my ideal JLA cast and crew, which can also be found on IMDb.
Directors: Andy and Lana Wachowski; Writers: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof; Producers: Wachowskis, Christopher Nolan, Zack Snyder, Charles Roven, Emma Thomas; Cinematographer: Wally Pfister; Composer: Hans Zimmer; Consultants: Bruce W. Timm, Geoff Johns
Now for the cast: Henry Cavill-Clark Kent/Superman, Nathan Fillion-Bruce Wayne/Batman, Terrence Howard-John Stewart/Green Lantern, Michael Fassbender-J'onn J'onzz/Martian Manhunter, Chris Pine-Wally West/The Flash, Kate Beckinsale-Wonder Woman, Elizabeth Banks-Hawkgirl, Brad Pitt-Steve Trevor, Angela Bassett-Amanda Waller, Mark Hamill-Voice of Darkseid
Those are my picks, but who knows how close it'll be to the finished product. While I am a hard core DC fan, I have plenty of concerns as to how they're gonna handle this project. The reason behind the success of Avengers (say what you want about it as a movie, but it did the characters justice) is because Marvel had it in mind from the beginning. There have been so many separate franchises within the DC cinematic universe that it will be difficult to culminate each one into a single film, especially for viewers outside the comic book world.
Despite the enormous impact and success of Nolan's Batman trilogy, the character will have to be reinvented in order to be incorporated into a world of aliens and monsters beyond Gotham. Whoever is given the task of composing this film's script will need to keep this in mind, so as to avoid duplicating Nolan's version.
Choosing which characters to include is another vital aspect of bringing JLA to the big screen. There are as many JLA heroes in the comics as there are Avengers, if not more. I picked these seven not only because they're the main force in the animated series, but because they're the best. This team has a great mix of personalities, powers, and each play a pivotal role in each other's stories. Once they are used, an assortment of others can be featured in sequels.
As far as the plot goes, I'm hoping DC will make this a trilogy, so long as the first installment proves successful. I would imagine an apocalyptic war with Darkseid to initially unite the team. If you look at the animated series and the New 52 comics, you'll see Batman investigating C.A.D.M.U.S. closely prior to an invasion of Earth, and Martian Manhunter's origin linked to these events. Get a solid writer or two on board and we can expect a good epic to launch the series.
My ideal title for a sequel would be JLA: Project C.A.D.M.U.S., which will document Amanda Waller's strive to end the ever-growing superhero organization, along with Lex Luthor's rise to becoming President (whom I think should be portrayed by Timothy Olyphant.)
Other heroes and villains I feel should come about in sequels would be Green Arrow (Norman Reedus), Red Tornado (Jon Hamm), The Atom (Ben Affleck), Dr. Fate (Laurence Fishburne), Black Canary (Morena Baccarin), Deathstroke (Liev Schreiber), Solomon Grundy (Ron Perlman), and Vandall Savage (Javier Bardem).
Justice League will be one of the biggest comic book films of all time, and has the potential of being one of the best. If done right, it will be gritty, compelling, and contain a wide range of characters. In order for this to happen, each cast and crew member must be carefully selected; and the script needs to be a knockout.
First off, let me go ahead and share my ideal JLA cast and crew, which can also be found on IMDb.
Directors: Andy and Lana Wachowski; Writers: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof; Producers: Wachowskis, Christopher Nolan, Zack Snyder, Charles Roven, Emma Thomas; Cinematographer: Wally Pfister; Composer: Hans Zimmer; Consultants: Bruce W. Timm, Geoff Johns
Now for the cast: Henry Cavill-Clark Kent/Superman, Nathan Fillion-Bruce Wayne/Batman, Terrence Howard-John Stewart/Green Lantern, Michael Fassbender-J'onn J'onzz/Martian Manhunter, Chris Pine-Wally West/The Flash, Kate Beckinsale-Wonder Woman, Elizabeth Banks-Hawkgirl, Brad Pitt-Steve Trevor, Angela Bassett-Amanda Waller, Mark Hamill-Voice of Darkseid
Those are my picks, but who knows how close it'll be to the finished product. While I am a hard core DC fan, I have plenty of concerns as to how they're gonna handle this project. The reason behind the success of Avengers (say what you want about it as a movie, but it did the characters justice) is because Marvel had it in mind from the beginning. There have been so many separate franchises within the DC cinematic universe that it will be difficult to culminate each one into a single film, especially for viewers outside the comic book world.
Despite the enormous impact and success of Nolan's Batman trilogy, the character will have to be reinvented in order to be incorporated into a world of aliens and monsters beyond Gotham. Whoever is given the task of composing this film's script will need to keep this in mind, so as to avoid duplicating Nolan's version.
Choosing which characters to include is another vital aspect of bringing JLA to the big screen. There are as many JLA heroes in the comics as there are Avengers, if not more. I picked these seven not only because they're the main force in the animated series, but because they're the best. This team has a great mix of personalities, powers, and each play a pivotal role in each other's stories. Once they are used, an assortment of others can be featured in sequels.
As far as the plot goes, I'm hoping DC will make this a trilogy, so long as the first installment proves successful. I would imagine an apocalyptic war with Darkseid to initially unite the team. If you look at the animated series and the New 52 comics, you'll see Batman investigating C.A.D.M.U.S. closely prior to an invasion of Earth, and Martian Manhunter's origin linked to these events. Get a solid writer or two on board and we can expect a good epic to launch the series.
My ideal title for a sequel would be JLA: Project C.A.D.M.U.S., which will document Amanda Waller's strive to end the ever-growing superhero organization, along with Lex Luthor's rise to becoming President (whom I think should be portrayed by Timothy Olyphant.)
Other heroes and villains I feel should come about in sequels would be Green Arrow (Norman Reedus), Red Tornado (Jon Hamm), The Atom (Ben Affleck), Dr. Fate (Laurence Fishburne), Black Canary (Morena Baccarin), Deathstroke (Liev Schreiber), Solomon Grundy (Ron Perlman), and Vandall Savage (Javier Bardem).
Justice League will be one of the biggest comic book films of all time, and has the potential of being one of the best. If done right, it will be gritty, compelling, and contain a wide range of characters. In order for this to happen, each cast and crew member must be carefully selected; and the script needs to be a knockout.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Memento (2000)
*****
Dir. Christopher Nolan
Before The Dark Knight Trilogy and Inception, Christopher Nolan was critically acclaimed for his independent films. These mind-boggling thrillers and film noir pictures included Following (1998), Insomnia (2002), and Memento (2000).
Memento is the story of a widower named Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce), who suffers from short-term memory loss, and uses a system of notes and tattoos to hunt down his wife's murderer. Limited by his condition, he recruits the aid of a young woman named Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss), and a crooked cop Teddy Gammel (Joe Pantaliano). As he pursues his detective life, we see another plot line involving one of his former clients when he was an insurance agent, who also carries the burden of this disability. While this story is presented to viewers in chronological order, Leonard's is told backwards. As more and more pieces of the puzzle are displayed as the film progresses, they each culminate into a climactic finale which continues to mesmerize audiences over a decade after its release.
The most intriguing aspect of this film is the psychological impact it has on one's mind. Not only does Nolan tell a truly remarkable and unique story, but his ability as a director allows him to penetrate the deepest layers of the viewer's consciousness. His script, based on his brother Jonathan's short story, is a brilliantly composed piece of writing. While perplexing, it contains excellent characterization and well formulated dialogue. The construction of the plot departs from the standard Hollywood format, preventing viewers from guessing what will happen next, and instead allowing them to be fully captivated.
Pearce, Moss, Pantaliano, and every other cast member give terrific performances. Pearce presents his character as emotionally conflicted and for the most part alienated from society, but not unrealistic. Moss and Pantaliano are both dynamic and unique in portraying their characters, and how they relate to others. The internal and external conflicts are well balanced, effectively used, and very original.
This is a film which makes you think, experience, and interact with an assortment of characters and conflicts. Nolan's ability to incorporate a wide range of psychological themes into his movies, and use them effectively, is what makes him one of the best directors of the 21st Century.
Note: This and the last film I reviewed on here are both available to stream on Netflix.
Dir. Christopher Nolan
Before The Dark Knight Trilogy and Inception, Christopher Nolan was critically acclaimed for his independent films. These mind-boggling thrillers and film noir pictures included Following (1998), Insomnia (2002), and Memento (2000).
Memento is the story of a widower named Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce), who suffers from short-term memory loss, and uses a system of notes and tattoos to hunt down his wife's murderer. Limited by his condition, he recruits the aid of a young woman named Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss), and a crooked cop Teddy Gammel (Joe Pantaliano). As he pursues his detective life, we see another plot line involving one of his former clients when he was an insurance agent, who also carries the burden of this disability. While this story is presented to viewers in chronological order, Leonard's is told backwards. As more and more pieces of the puzzle are displayed as the film progresses, they each culminate into a climactic finale which continues to mesmerize audiences over a decade after its release.
The most intriguing aspect of this film is the psychological impact it has on one's mind. Not only does Nolan tell a truly remarkable and unique story, but his ability as a director allows him to penetrate the deepest layers of the viewer's consciousness. His script, based on his brother Jonathan's short story, is a brilliantly composed piece of writing. While perplexing, it contains excellent characterization and well formulated dialogue. The construction of the plot departs from the standard Hollywood format, preventing viewers from guessing what will happen next, and instead allowing them to be fully captivated.
Pearce, Moss, Pantaliano, and every other cast member give terrific performances. Pearce presents his character as emotionally conflicted and for the most part alienated from society, but not unrealistic. Moss and Pantaliano are both dynamic and unique in portraying their characters, and how they relate to others. The internal and external conflicts are well balanced, effectively used, and very original.
This is a film which makes you think, experience, and interact with an assortment of characters and conflicts. Nolan's ability to incorporate a wide range of psychological themes into his movies, and use them effectively, is what makes him one of the best directors of the 21st Century.
Note: This and the last film I reviewed on here are both available to stream on Netflix.
Monday, October 1, 2012
My IMDb Lists
Follow this link to see all the lists I've compiled on IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur36611787/lists
These range from various titles and directors which I feel deserve recognition.
These range from various titles and directors which I feel deserve recognition.
Friday, September 14, 2012
The Next Three Days (2010)
****
Dir. Paul Haggis
I saw this film when it first came out, and forgot how good it was until I watched it again on Netflix earlier today. Writer/director Paul Haggis (Crash) delivers a crime drama with a clever and intriguing plotline in The Next Three Days, moreso than a number of other modern thrillers have been able to achieve.
The story is centered around an English teacher named John Brennan (Russell Crowe), whose life is turned upside down when his wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) is arrested for the murder of her boss. Left to care for their son by himself, John longs for his family to be reunited. Positive of Lara's innocence, this upstanding middle-class citizen will use any means necessary to liberate his beloved wife from a lifetime behind bars.
Upon seeking the advice of Damon Pennington (Liam Neeson), an escape artist turned author, he is given this warning prior to embarking on this mission:"But before you do anything, you have to ask yourself if you can do it. Can you forget about ever seeing your parents again? Can you kill a guard? Leave your kid at a gas station? Push some nice old lady to the ground just because she gets between you and the door? Because to do this thing, that's who you have to become. And if you can't, don't start, 'cause you'll just get someone killed." With these words in mind, he trades his life for that of a vigilante, risking everything he has left to save Lara.
Haggis is a master storyteller, with a style of filmmaking that is more independent than many other directors of this genre. This is a thriller with great depth to its characters, and a story much less outlandish than a number of other crime dramas. Not only are we able to sympathize with the conflicting emotions of Brennan, but viewers also continually gain insight into his motivations as the film progresses. The way Haggis develops the relationship between him and his son is brilliant, presenting numerous psychological themes throughout.
There is also an excellent display of cinematography in this picture to enhance the story. We see multiple close-up shots, which allow us to examine the emotional state of each character, and put less emphasis on the overall action. Aspects like these are the mark of a great filmmaker. Rather than follow the standard structure for a Hollywood thriller, Haggis' style offers a unique approach which focuses more on story and character development than anything else. The pacing is just right, and Danny Elfman's score correlates well with the mood.
Other noteworthy thrillers I've seen in recent years include Limitless (Neil Burger, 2011), Source Code (Duncan Jones, 2011), and Deja Vu (Tony Scott, 2006). What stands out about The Next Three Days is Haggis' effective use of characterization and film noir elements, all which culminate into a unique and intriguing story which keep viewers engaged up until the very end.
Dir. Paul Haggis
I saw this film when it first came out, and forgot how good it was until I watched it again on Netflix earlier today. Writer/director Paul Haggis (Crash) delivers a crime drama with a clever and intriguing plotline in The Next Three Days, moreso than a number of other modern thrillers have been able to achieve.
The story is centered around an English teacher named John Brennan (Russell Crowe), whose life is turned upside down when his wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) is arrested for the murder of her boss. Left to care for their son by himself, John longs for his family to be reunited. Positive of Lara's innocence, this upstanding middle-class citizen will use any means necessary to liberate his beloved wife from a lifetime behind bars.
Upon seeking the advice of Damon Pennington (Liam Neeson), an escape artist turned author, he is given this warning prior to embarking on this mission:"But before you do anything, you have to ask yourself if you can do it. Can you forget about ever seeing your parents again? Can you kill a guard? Leave your kid at a gas station? Push some nice old lady to the ground just because she gets between you and the door? Because to do this thing, that's who you have to become. And if you can't, don't start, 'cause you'll just get someone killed." With these words in mind, he trades his life for that of a vigilante, risking everything he has left to save Lara.
Haggis is a master storyteller, with a style of filmmaking that is more independent than many other directors of this genre. This is a thriller with great depth to its characters, and a story much less outlandish than a number of other crime dramas. Not only are we able to sympathize with the conflicting emotions of Brennan, but viewers also continually gain insight into his motivations as the film progresses. The way Haggis develops the relationship between him and his son is brilliant, presenting numerous psychological themes throughout.
There is also an excellent display of cinematography in this picture to enhance the story. We see multiple close-up shots, which allow us to examine the emotional state of each character, and put less emphasis on the overall action. Aspects like these are the mark of a great filmmaker. Rather than follow the standard structure for a Hollywood thriller, Haggis' style offers a unique approach which focuses more on story and character development than anything else. The pacing is just right, and Danny Elfman's score correlates well with the mood.
Other noteworthy thrillers I've seen in recent years include Limitless (Neil Burger, 2011), Source Code (Duncan Jones, 2011), and Deja Vu (Tony Scott, 2006). What stands out about The Next Three Days is Haggis' effective use of characterization and film noir elements, all which culminate into a unique and intriguing story which keep viewers engaged up until the very end.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
The Importance of Fiction
With garbage franchises like Twilight and The Hunger Games, I feel that the nature of fictitious novels and films is steadily declining as a result of society's poor taste and low expectations for this genre. Over the last couple weeks at NCSU, I've engaged in some very compelling discussions in class regarding this subject.
In order to understand the significance of fiction, we must first establish a clear and precise definition for it. Is fiction nothing more than made-up tales presented through the minds of imaginary characters, allowing us to escape from the constraints of reality? Or does this medium of storytelling serve a greater purpose?
The first novel we've been reading in Studies in Fiction is Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, a literary piece which has stood the test of time as one of the most definitive works in this genre. However, in spite of its legacy, this book is filled with numerous inconsistencies. There are time gaps, unnecessary repetitions, and characterization choices which leave readers puzzled. These things make us wonder exactly what intentions Defoe had when he wrote it. We know from the preface that he used Crusoe's character to project his ideas about the world and the direction of society; which to me should be the goal of every great writer.
At the time when Robinson Crusoe was written, the very concept of a fictional novel was a radical concept in it of itself. Although we as humans have always had an innate desire for storytelling, this particular medium had not yet developed. Furthermore, novels acquired just as much controversy as movies would at the birth of the film industry. The risk Defoe and other writers took at this time, and still take today, points to the fact that fiction is an important genre which allows us to reflect upon the questions that we all long to answer.
Let's look at one of my favorite pieces of fiction in both literature and cinema: Cormac McCarthy's best-selling novel No Country For Old Men, adapted into an Academy Award Winning film by Joel and Ethan Coen. Not only is this story a grotesquely intriguing tale of vengeance and mystery, but the manner in which it is presented enables us to examine the depths of our capacity for evil.
A common aspect of fiction is the idea that there are two sides to us all, which is explored in McCarthy's novel and the Coen Brothers' film. The moral implications of us possessing a split personality can be portrayed in numerous ways, as seen throughout a multitude of fictitious works. Because fiction has such an appeal to a wide range of audiences, writers and filmmakers are able to use it as a gateway to express their ideas regarding the nature of good and evil, along with a variety of other subjects.
My concern is that because so much of our society is easily wooed by anything (Hunger Games has the linguistic level of a 12 year-old), I'm afraid people fail to recognize the power of this genre. Too many make a conscious decision to turn their minds off when going to the movies or reading books, which lowers the bar for quality fiction.
Hence, my hope is that writers won't allow society's idea of good fantasy (crappy vampire romance), and good science fiction (a poorly written futuristic Lord of the Flies), to influence them.
In order to understand the significance of fiction, we must first establish a clear and precise definition for it. Is fiction nothing more than made-up tales presented through the minds of imaginary characters, allowing us to escape from the constraints of reality? Or does this medium of storytelling serve a greater purpose?
The first novel we've been reading in Studies in Fiction is Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, a literary piece which has stood the test of time as one of the most definitive works in this genre. However, in spite of its legacy, this book is filled with numerous inconsistencies. There are time gaps, unnecessary repetitions, and characterization choices which leave readers puzzled. These things make us wonder exactly what intentions Defoe had when he wrote it. We know from the preface that he used Crusoe's character to project his ideas about the world and the direction of society; which to me should be the goal of every great writer.
At the time when Robinson Crusoe was written, the very concept of a fictional novel was a radical concept in it of itself. Although we as humans have always had an innate desire for storytelling, this particular medium had not yet developed. Furthermore, novels acquired just as much controversy as movies would at the birth of the film industry. The risk Defoe and other writers took at this time, and still take today, points to the fact that fiction is an important genre which allows us to reflect upon the questions that we all long to answer.
Let's look at one of my favorite pieces of fiction in both literature and cinema: Cormac McCarthy's best-selling novel No Country For Old Men, adapted into an Academy Award Winning film by Joel and Ethan Coen. Not only is this story a grotesquely intriguing tale of vengeance and mystery, but the manner in which it is presented enables us to examine the depths of our capacity for evil.
A common aspect of fiction is the idea that there are two sides to us all, which is explored in McCarthy's novel and the Coen Brothers' film. The moral implications of us possessing a split personality can be portrayed in numerous ways, as seen throughout a multitude of fictitious works. Because fiction has such an appeal to a wide range of audiences, writers and filmmakers are able to use it as a gateway to express their ideas regarding the nature of good and evil, along with a variety of other subjects.
My concern is that because so much of our society is easily wooed by anything (Hunger Games has the linguistic level of a 12 year-old), I'm afraid people fail to recognize the power of this genre. Too many make a conscious decision to turn their minds off when going to the movies or reading books, which lowers the bar for quality fiction.
Hence, my hope is that writers won't allow society's idea of good fantasy (crappy vampire romance), and good science fiction (a poorly written futuristic Lord of the Flies), to influence them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)