I am from Pittsburgh, PA and all Pittsburghers are proud of their city. The Perks of Being a Wallflower takes place in Pittsburgh, I haven't read the book, didn't know what the story was about but I wanted to see it because it was filmed in Pittsburgh, and it won Best First Feature at the Independent Spirit Awards. My favorite critic, Sean Collier, writes in Pittsburgh. In his review of this film he said: "The Dark Knight Rises may have been Pittsburgh’s most high-profile role in 2012; Wallflower will have to settle for simply being the best movie made here in recent memory." He also says "It’s well-acted, lovingly made and constantly beautiful."
This movie is very different. The character arcs unfold in a very unique way, the dialogue is perfect, and the cinematography is unlike anything I've seen in a "teen drama." It's the cinematography, specifically the lighting that makes this movie "constantly beautiful."
Here are some stills from the movie:
Look at the harsh lighting creating very high contrast. This is more scene in horrors or film noir, but in this movie it creates a very different feeling.
Here are a couple more examples:
Notice how Emma Watson, who plays Sam, in the picture directly above, only half her face is lit. This is very common throughout the film. In the party scene above the light beams coming from the ceiling creates a very dreamy feeling, same with the homecoming scene and notice the constant yellow tint. These are very unconventional tactics in cinematography, why would they make this decision? The following clip is a pivotal point in the movie and answered the question for me.
They lit the movie to resemble how it looks inside the tunnel. The tunnel the filmed in is the Fort Pitt Tunnel, and it really does make things look yellow and, like any tunnel, it has very harsh lighting. In the tunnel Charlie, the main character, felt infinite, or free. This experience is referenced throughout and returned to in the film. Charlie never forgot it and neither to we because the whole movie looks like the inside of this tunnel.
Charlie has a hard time dealing with a specific event in his life and reality for him gets blurred sometimes. Which is why faces are half lit and every scene has a dreamy feel. When it comes to the whole story, we are kept in the dark, therefore the film keeps some of the frame in the dark. This is visual story telling, these are intentional devices used to bring us, the audience, into the mood of the film, and it is executed beautifully. This movie kept me up at night thinking about the cinematography.
This next clip is one of my favorite example in recent memory of introducing characters. Patrick and Sam become Charlies best friends and we meet them in the following wonderful scene.
Notice how they introduced Sam,
No other scene has this kind of perspective shot. By doing this before we even know who she is, we know she is special to Charlie. Filmmakers tell stories with the camera. Every element in the frame is put there intentionally. The storytelling in The Perks of Being a Wallflower is constantly beautiful.
PS. The movie also has some beautiful shots of Pittsburgh, really makes the city look amazing. Read Sean Collier's Full Article.
With one shot, one payoff cut from reaction to event, Steven Spielberg changed the future of movies. Back in the day Spielberg was a rebel, not falling in line with the studio system but doing what he wanted the way he wanted. Jurassic Park changed the game, this movie made our childhood dreams a reality and the one scene that encompassed that feeling is the following:
My wife and I recently saw the 3D re-release of Jurassic Park and I was reminded of how I felt when I saw my first dinosaur. Before Jurassic Park filmmakers were still apprehensive about CGI, it was an expensive risk that the public viewed only as a novelty. Spielberg changed everything with the scene above and it was executed perfectly. Audiences needed to buy into CGI, the image needed to give us an emotional reaction. The scene above called to everyone of our inner children, the character's reactions in the film were those of children.
With the help of John Williams' flawless score, this scene became a dream, a fantasy we all craved to see. Nothing measures the success of art more than an emotional reaction. I get so excited when a film can make me react. Jurassic Park is a big budget blockbuster but it still captured our excitement the scene above let us be children again. Spielberg didn't stop there, now that the audience had bought into the CGI he brought us into reality with the story, he had help from author Michael Crichton of course. With out the scene above, neither the T-Rex scene nor the Raptor scenes would have been as intense. Spielberg put us in a world with dinosaurs and got us emotionally involved, we had to see more, setting up one the perfectly delivered line, "I'll Show You."
There would be no Lord of the Rings or Avatar without Jurassic Park. Movies changed forever and it worked because of a three minute scene.
P.S. If you want to read more about how Jurassic Park changed the world check out this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/04/the-i-jurassic-park-i-period-how-cgi-dinosaurs-transformed-film-forever/274669/
I have seen trailer after trailer, poster after poster advertising prequels, sequels, remakes and reboots, "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!" The latest in this wave of insults is Evil Dead, a remake of Sam Raimi's 1981 horror/comedy gore-fest. I normally blog about movies I have seen, let me be clear, I will NEVER EVER EVER see this remake. I hear good things about it, many of my friends like it, I don't care. I am insulted by just the idea of this film.
I'll start with a remake that a really liked, True Grit. The Coen Brother are fantastic filmmakers and True Grit was very well done, it looked great and the acting was top notch. One reason it worked: the original was not groundbreaking in any way. Ocean's Eleven (2001) is also one of my favorites, but I have not seen the original so I can't comment on which one is better. In this blog Iwill focus more on the horror of horror remakes.
If you haven't seen the original Evil Dead, shame on you, but here is a little clip (don't watch if you don't like horror films):
Remaking Raimi's The Evil Dead irritates me for many reasons. One, the original is just that, original, and EXTREMELY ORIGINAL at that. No one had ever seen something so horrific yet so hilarious. The over exaggerated acting and gore made it one of a kind. Now there are many copy cats, and remaking is just falling in line with those copy cats. Two, one of the reasons the first one is so entertaining was the lack of budget. The grain, the makeup, the special effects screamed no money, but the filmmakers were creative enough to actually benefit from it. These filmmakers don't need to make those creative/risky decisions, they have a budget and endless resources. Why not with those endless resources make something new, a real homage to The Evil Dead would be to take those resources and make an incredible NEW movie. Third, they completely take advantage of a cult classic just to make money. The Evil Dead has a very loyal cult following, producers knew they could make this film and have a guaranteed audience, who would have a nostalgia on their side. It paid off with a #1 box office weekend.
This is not art, this is not creativity. Remakes, Prequels and Sequels are the product of unoriginal thought. It's easy to copy something. The Evil Dead was extremely creative. Creativity should inspire more creativity, we should feel inspired to be be creative ourselves, to build on what has already been done, not just try to do it again, that is not progress. It's cheap. Raimi's The Evil Dead is a testament to what independent film makers can do. Raimi and his crew probably didn't intend on changing the horror genre forever, they just wanted to tell a story in a way no one had done before, but they did change the genre. The remake is just another movie, nothing new, maybe entertaining for two hours, but then forgotten once you leave the box office. That maybe all people want now a days simple sheepish entertainment. Not me, I require more. I want a new perspective, a real original story, i want talent and creativity, risky choices. Remakes are void of all of that.
Evil Dead is not the first horror movie that really ticked me off, it's the latest in a trend. Rob Zombie's Halloween, giving Michael Myers' backstory really just ruined the story. He's evil because he had a horrible childhood, it's not nearly as scary if you feel bad for the killer. Not to mention the original Halloween was another groundbreaking film, the Godfather of Slasher films, the remake was just another movie. Romero's Dawn of the Dead was a masterpiece, no other Zombie film has come close to the art of that, the remake lacked the social commentary, among many other things and became just another movie.
A clip from the original Dawn of the Dead:
I still haven't seen a Gus Van Sant movie since he butcherd Hitchcock's masterpiece Psycho. He freaking shot it frame by frame like the original, how stupid can you be, it's a freshman film school exercise. Also I would fail if I didn't mention the ENDLESS & HORRIBLE remakes of every Japanese horror film, obviously humans can make an original horror film, but i guess in America we don't want to think for ourselves, that's too hard, let's steal from Japan. Now I see Carrie is coming out, yeah, that's a good idea, think the end with still be as scary? NO!
Being scared is an interesting emotion. For those of us who with a devotion to Horror movies, the adrenaline of being scared must also release dopamine or something because there is a real emotional, and pleasurable response to getting scared and we can't get enough. That must be why there are all of these Horror remakes, Hollywood trying to make money on our emotional responses.
The Box Office is what drives these remakes, demand more from your entertainment, demand originality, new thoughts, talent. Demand true art.
I'll start with a remake that a really liked, True Grit. The Coen Brother are fantastic filmmakers and True Grit was very well done, it looked great and the acting was top notch. One reason it worked: the original was not groundbreaking in any way. Ocean's Eleven (2001) is also one of my favorites, but I have not seen the original so I can't comment on which one is better. In this blog Iwill focus more on the horror of horror remakes.
If you haven't seen the original Evil Dead, shame on you, but here is a little clip (don't watch if you don't like horror films):
Remaking Raimi's The Evil Dead irritates me for many reasons. One, the original is just that, original, and EXTREMELY ORIGINAL at that. No one had ever seen something so horrific yet so hilarious. The over exaggerated acting and gore made it one of a kind. Now there are many copy cats, and remaking is just falling in line with those copy cats. Two, one of the reasons the first one is so entertaining was the lack of budget. The grain, the makeup, the special effects screamed no money, but the filmmakers were creative enough to actually benefit from it. These filmmakers don't need to make those creative/risky decisions, they have a budget and endless resources. Why not with those endless resources make something new, a real homage to The Evil Dead would be to take those resources and make an incredible NEW movie. Third, they completely take advantage of a cult classic just to make money. The Evil Dead has a very loyal cult following, producers knew they could make this film and have a guaranteed audience, who would have a nostalgia on their side. It paid off with a #1 box office weekend.
This is not art, this is not creativity. Remakes, Prequels and Sequels are the product of unoriginal thought. It's easy to copy something. The Evil Dead was extremely creative. Creativity should inspire more creativity, we should feel inspired to be be creative ourselves, to build on what has already been done, not just try to do it again, that is not progress. It's cheap. Raimi's The Evil Dead is a testament to what independent film makers can do. Raimi and his crew probably didn't intend on changing the horror genre forever, they just wanted to tell a story in a way no one had done before, but they did change the genre. The remake is just another movie, nothing new, maybe entertaining for two hours, but then forgotten once you leave the box office. That maybe all people want now a days simple sheepish entertainment. Not me, I require more. I want a new perspective, a real original story, i want talent and creativity, risky choices. Remakes are void of all of that.
Evil Dead is not the first horror movie that really ticked me off, it's the latest in a trend. Rob Zombie's Halloween, giving Michael Myers' backstory really just ruined the story. He's evil because he had a horrible childhood, it's not nearly as scary if you feel bad for the killer. Not to mention the original Halloween was another groundbreaking film, the Godfather of Slasher films, the remake was just another movie. Romero's Dawn of the Dead was a masterpiece, no other Zombie film has come close to the art of that, the remake lacked the social commentary, among many other things and became just another movie.
A clip from the original Dawn of the Dead:
I still haven't seen a Gus Van Sant movie since he butcherd Hitchcock's masterpiece Psycho. He freaking shot it frame by frame like the original, how stupid can you be, it's a freshman film school exercise. Also I would fail if I didn't mention the ENDLESS & HORRIBLE remakes of every Japanese horror film, obviously humans can make an original horror film, but i guess in America we don't want to think for ourselves, that's too hard, let's steal from Japan. Now I see Carrie is coming out, yeah, that's a good idea, think the end with still be as scary? NO!
Being scared is an interesting emotion. For those of us who with a devotion to Horror movies, the adrenaline of being scared must also release dopamine or something because there is a real emotional, and pleasurable response to getting scared and we can't get enough. That must be why there are all of these Horror remakes, Hollywood trying to make money on our emotional responses.
The Box Office is what drives these remakes, demand more from your entertainment, demand originality, new thoughts, talent. Demand true art.
I didn't always agree with the late Roger Ebert's criticisms of movies, but I was saddened by his passing because it reminded me of the changing times. Times in which are feeling more and more mediocre. No one was as influential as Roger Ebert when it came to movie criticisms. It wasn't just because of his simplistic yet genius Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down, he was a purist and an excellent writier. Roger Ebert loved movies, loved art, because he knew it offered more than a simply a decorated canvas or 2 hours of entertainment. He stood up for true art and bashed those who insulted the audience.
Roger Ebert's Review of North:
"I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it."
Roger Ebert's Review of Fargo:
"To watch it is to experience steadily mounting delight, as you realize the filmmakers have taken enormous risks, gotten away with them and made a movie that is completely original, and as familiar as an old shoe—or a rubbersoled hunting boot from Land's End, more likely.”
I added the bold to the quotes. In mainstream today there are so many sequels, remakes, and unoriginal thought it makes me crazy. Gratuitous nudity, swearing, and sex, poor acting, writing, editing insults the audience. Who will take Roger Ebert's place in calling these movies out? Who will take his place in revering those who take risks to tell great stories?
On Star Wars: "Every once in a while I have what I think of as an out-of-the-body experience at a movie. When the ESP people use a phrase like that, they're referring to the sensation of the mind actually leaving the body and spiriting itself off to China or Peoria or a galaxy far, far away. When I use the phrase, I simply mean that my imagination has forgotten it is actually present in a movie theater and thinks it's up there on the screen. In a curious sense, the events in the movie seem real, and I seem to be a part of them."
On Life of Pi: "a miraculous achievement of storytelling and a landmark of visual mastery. Inspired by a worldwide best-seller that many readers must have assumed was unfilmable, it is a triumph over its difficulties. It is also a moving spiritual achievement, a movie whose title could have been shortened to life."
We can't sit back and accept horrible, lazy art done by sheep. Art should take us to a new world, show us a different perceptive, it should last longer than a trip to the museum or two hours in a theater. Movies are new worlds created just for an audience. I want to make movies create a new perspective to let people see life through new eyes. I want someone to hold me accountable to the public. If my message is lost or if I get lazy I want someone to tell me and wake me up. Roger Ebert will be missed and I pray we can take his message and standards and apply them to every movie we watch and never allow ourselves to be insulted.
Just for fun:
Roger Ebert on Twilight, "It's about a teenage boy trying to practice abstinence, and how, in the heat of the moment, it's really, really hard. And about a girl who wants to go all the way with him and doesn't care what might happen. He's so beautiful she would do anything for him. She is the embodiment of the sentiment, 'I'd die for you.' She is, like many adolescents, a thanatophile."
"Vertigo" is an absolute masterpiece. I have seen it probably 16 times read the screenplay 7 times and I wrote 3 different research papers on it in college, each other them being 7 or more pages. Alfred Hitchcock is the greatest director of all time and this is his best. Last Year, Sight and Sound Magazine rated "Vertigo" #1 on their list of Top Ten Films of All Time.
You know how excited people get when they tell you they've seen a movie 20 times and they never get tired of it? When making a good film, one of the keys to story telling is Subtext. For real depth to take place in a fictional story there needs to be things going on under the surface otherwise no one will see the movie more than once. That is why people see a movie more than once, they figure out more of the Subtext each time they see it, so it is like a new experience.
IMDB summary of the movie: "A retired San Francisco detective suffering from acrophobia investigates the strange activities of an old friend's much-younger wife, all the while becoming dangerously obsessed with her."
Let me set up the following scene. Scottie, the detective, played my the immortal Jimmy Stewart, has followed Madeline to the San Francisco Bay. Madeline jumped in and almost drowns if Scottie hadn't rescued her. Scottie brings Madeline back to his apartment. Here is part of that scene:
This is only a little of that scene, and there is some great stuff later, but it's still full of Subtext and sexual tension. I think many people will agree with me that there is too much explicit sex in entertainment. This scene from "Vertigo" shows how you portray sexuality without explict sex.
First of all, Madeline has just woken up at a complete stranger's house wearing only a robe, and she looks pretty comfortable drying off by the fire. Maybe she's done this before?
Notice when Madeline walks out and asks "What Happened?" Scotty looks her up and down before answering, and when he does answer he speaks very slowly. Then something happens that is very subtle but very unconventional, even now-a-days. As Scottie speaks, the camera stays on Madeline for an extended time. Normally, you would just see her reaction to something Scotty said but the camera stays on her until Scotty finishes the sentence. Hitchcock always used "perspective" as an artistic tool. Keeping the camera on Madeline gives us Scotty's perspective, he can't take his eyes off of her.
Scottie's next line after the shot of Madeline: "Come over here by the fire." And Scotty puts some cushions down. When Madeline tells Scottie he's very "direct" not rude, just direct, then they share a glance, this is pillow talk, she like it when Scottie is "direct." If you keep watching this scene, Madeline tells Scottie almost out of the blue, "I'm Married you know." Then Scottie gets a phone call in the other room, when he returns, Madeline is gone. Like a one night stand. This one little scene fuels Scotty's love and obsession for Madeline.
Subtleties make this scene real to us, we can feel the tension like we are in the room and now we can start understanding these characters. We are involved and as Scottie gets crazier and crazier, so do we. There is a major twist about two-thirds of the way through the movie (another unconventional tactic) that is mind-blowing and makes the last third of the movie very very intense, not like DIE HARD intense, but like grinding your teeth, want to scream, heart beats out of your chest intense. But, if the audience was not involved in Scottie's emotional journey, the last third of the movie would not feel nearly as intense, it might even be boring.
Now, just becuase I want to and it's awesome, the following clip takes place about halfway through the movie. It is Scottie's Nightmare. Enjoy.