Archive for the ‘Home Entertainment’ Category
Shelf Life: Fight Club
Shelf Life: Fight Club
By all accounts, 1999 was one of the best years in film history, featuring an amazing glut of debuts and career-defining follow-ups from a rich and varied roster of directors who are steadily working some ten years later. For example American Beauty, which was also released in ’99, was one of the first films revisited in our “Shelf Life” series, and it seemed most likely to lose its luster, especially given its Oscar win and almost universal critical acclaim, but thankfully the film sustained most of its initial appeal and impact.
Fight Club, meanwhile, faced markedly more polarizing reactions from audiences and critics, although like Alan Ball’s film it captured a moment in the zeitgeist that made it important almost regardless of how good it was. Ten years later, Fox Home Entertainment just released the film on Blu-ray in a gorgeous new set, and after a decade of conspicuous consumption and ironic detachment, it’s time to see whether the weight of its message or meaning still holds relevance.
The Facts: Released on October 15, 1999, David Fincher‘s Fight Club is an adaptation of the Chuck Palahniuk novel of the same name, adapted by screenwriter Jim Uhls. Its incendiary deconstruction of contemporary culture and the narcotizing effects of consumerism, particularly on men, was met with mixed reactions: some hailed it as a brilliant social commentary, while others condemned it as empty provocation, or worse, irresponsible.
Regardless, the film eventually earned $100 million domestically against its $63 million budget (reportedly $17.5 million of which went to star Brad Pitt), and enjoys an 80 percent fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It was nominated for only one Academy Award, for Sound Effects Editing, but it was also nominated for several awards by different critics groups including the Online Film Critics Society, and subsequently netted several awards for its DVD release, which featured several commentaries and featurettes exploring the world within the film.
What Still Works: While during its original release the film was deliberately, perhaps even conventionally reactionary (“f*ck Martha Stewart!”), it really serves as a powerful reminder that contemporary consumer culture is still designed to satisfy us in superficial ways and ultimately distract us from the human connections and more visceral accomplishments that prove more meaningful. Particularly with the benefit of hindsight, the film’s analysis of overmodulated consumption, broken down to the details and objects in our life that supposedly define us, is especially potent, and deserves to be revisited as a reminder to remain vigilant against that kind of complacency.
fight2
Meanwhile, I think especially now the film escapes being mere provocation or dangerous advocacy because it ultimately acknowledges that these characters are trading one oppressive structure for another, and that even the intentional absence of order eventually creates its own organized sense of routine, if not full-fledged cultural mores (hence Project Mayhem, the “space monkeys”‘ blind devotion to their anarchic causes, etc).
In terms of the performances, Pitt and Edward Norton are both really terrific as, essentially, the same guy, albeit in different iterations of his self-confidence, much less self-awareness. Fincher, coming off of the menacing polish of The Game, finds a gorgeously gritty aesthetic that really brings the narrator’s oblivious self-examination to life, and creates a truly subversive and valuable portrait of what is essential schizophrenia, filtered through both movie-star sheen and the thematically-reinforced, exacting opposite of stardom’s supposed “importance” – namely, that all of that beauty and truth is as illusory as anything else.
What Doesn’t Work: Surprisingly little, although the unwieldy structure, oddball rhythms of the storytelling and its eventual descent into (self-) destruction seem more shocking in the context of real-life events like 9/11, not to mention our culture’s subsequent escape even further into conventional, comfortable forms of entertainment. There’s lingering resonance to the destruction of the banks at the end of the film, both in terms of domestic and international terrorism and the current state of our economic system, but it’s subjective whether that’s a virtue or a shortcoming for film, since it certainly isn’t the film’s fault.
Otherwise, there is a degree to which the idea of white guys bemoaning their pampered, IKEA-sustained existence feels, well, so 1999, and that their reaction feels like a more than slightly self-indulgent rebellion that people with constructive minds wouldn’t act out. But as a parable and a perhaps necessary reminder of the complacency and boring blandness that can come from a life lived within the lines – and in light of the fact it’s meant not to be taken literally - Fight Club still transcends such criticisms.
What’s The Verdict: Fight Club is a really terrific movie and I am genuinely relieved to say that it holds up beautifully for the most part. Not only was it the first movie that I bought on DVD, but it was an important one in my adult, intellectual maturation, particularly in discovering that as conceptually appealing as such reckless behavior might be, it ultimately serves as mush as a prison as any other philosophy or paradigm. I think I still prefer Fincher’s previous film, The Game, if only because it was just so shocking and cathartic when I first saw it, but Fight Club is a wake-up call and a punch in the gut that needs to still be felt.
Interview: Judd Apatow (Part Two)
Interview: Judd Apatow (Part Two)
Read Part One of this interview right here
When Judd Apatow‘s latest film, Funny People, was announced, many critics and audiences hailed it – even before they saw it – not only as an evolution of the filmmaker’s style, but a return to the kind of drama-laced comedy that flourished in the 1980s and early ’90s thanks to folks like Cameron Crowe and James L. Brooks. When it was released, the film more than satisfied those expectations, offering an unflinching but frequently hilarious portrait of an A-list comedian rediscovering himself, but there seemed to be a sense that audiences knew themselves less well than they felt like they knew the film’s main character, resulting in a less enthusiastic response than perhaps even they expected.
The film arrives on Blu-ray this week, offering what is indisputably the most complete and comprehensive look behind the scenes at a comedy ever produced, and offers audiences a second chance to check out Apatow’s most meaningful and resonant work to date. Cinematical got a chance to catch up with the writer-director via telephone to discuss the contents of the expansive, 2-Disc Collector’s Edition; in the second part of our chat, Apatow talks about precisely what made the movie so personal for him, and offers a few insights about its place in his growing body of work, and its potential influence on his future films (including a Harry Pottermovie, maybe?).
Cinematical: With or without talking to you at the time of the film’s release, people seemed to assume that this was a very personal film, I think because it was more serious than your previous work. Was it really personal, and if so in what way or why?
Judd Apatow: Well, I find that things can be very personal without pointing out to people what is taken directly from your life. If I do it right, it shouldn’t feel like I’m just talking about personal experiences that happened to me or people in my world. So it’s good that it doesn’t seem – that you can’t track it (laughs). But the ideas are very intimate and they relate to a lot that’s happened to me over the decades, but it’s all thrown into a blender to make it more amusing or dramatic. But yes, it does feel very personal, to the point of being embarrassing, but it’s because it’s how you feel about the world that’s out there. It’s kind of showing one’s pleasant side and one’s crazy voices; I’m just better at hiding them in a character that can act them out. You make a movie and think, ah, this is about other people, but slowly you realize it’s all about you. It’s also about everyone who’s involved in the collaboration, but it surprises you when it’s done how much is based on things that you’re struggling with.
Cinematical: Given the sort of line-o-rama process by which you work when shooting scenes, how do you decide what ends up in a film or works best for it?
Apatow: Every joke is meant to illuminate something, whether it’s how funny someone is or a piece of their back story or how they’re feeling on that particular night. So there’s literally no punchline that wasn’t in there that wasn’t debated for hours and hours, but how I like to shoot it is to shoot Adam or Seth doing half an hour of material, not obsessing about what I will use when we’re shooting, and then decide what fits best after. But when you keep it loose and the comedians are really in character, other things happen on stage that are surprising and they do fit into what you need. People do subconsciously start living the story, so Adam one day said, “hey, tonight I’m going to improvise something on the piano,” and he just sits down and sings this mad song. The audience doesn’t know that he’s sick, but in a way it’s a strange goodbye to his audience, and it’s really sad and filthy. I never could have written that in a million years, and Adam did it off the top of his head; and because it’s improvised, it’s sloppy and emotionally raw in a way that’s very truthful. He just went there, and that’s why I try to create some extra space for those moments to happen.
fun15
Cinematical: How much is there a degree of sort of self-satirization in this film, whether you’re taking direct jabs at your or Adam’s movies? Or, even if it’s not in the movie, how much do you guys sort of rib one another about the movies you make?
Apatow: Every time you make a movie, it’s a risk. It’s easy to take for granted the work of comedians, but it’s insanely hard to make people laugh out loud and be really happy for an hour and a half straight. And sometimes you do it with the silliest thing in the world and sometimes you do it in a more thoughtful way or emotional way, but it’s hard as hell (laughs). How I looked at that aspect of the movie was that this character valued being on top more than the quality of his movies, so he tried to make decent movies, but his ego made him try to hit a home run every time out. That being said, while we were making the movie, we kept saying, “we’d make Mer-Man right now!” There’s a funny version of Mer-Man, there’s a funny version of Redo. And it genuinely made us laugh; even though we knew we were goofing on movies like that, we also thought, we could probably do a good one of these!
But one thing I appreciated from Adam was that he never said, “oh don’t do that – people will think you’re goofing on me.” The truth is, I’m not goofing on Adam because Adam has a ridiculously wide range of movies he’s made. He’s just covered so much ground. Some are incredibly silly, some are truly experimental art films, and his level of success is so high he’s just been amazing for a very long time, and I don’t think George Simmons would have tried most of what Adam has tried to do. Again, there’s a subtle difference there, so it’s easy for people to say, “oh, you’re goofing on your own movies,” but I really thought what was more interesting to me was what happens when a shallow person gets sick? He doesn’t want to be thoughtful, so his movies can’t be thoughtful; he’s not making introspective comedies. When he gets sick, he doesn’t tell anybody, he doesn’t know how to talk about it – he’s not that kind of person. He’s more like a Rodney Dangerfield kind of person; he’s telling jokes and being silly.
Cinematical: What I think is one of the things he and the film communicates is that comedy is a way for someone to conceal their true feelings, and ultimately a prison that keeps them from being able to express them.
Apatow: Sometimes it’s easier to hide when you’re that famous. It was strange when Michael Jackson died and there were so many similarities to how we were presenting this fictionalized comedy star in our movie and what was coming out about Michael Jackson. The opening conversation about our movie is Adam having a conversation with his doctor about sleep medication. And all of these images of this rich guy alone in this giant house, never feeling satisfied with the amount of affection he’s getting from the world – which is an enormous amount of affection. A lot of times people want to make you laugh not because they want to make you happy but because they want to know if you like them. Your laugh signals “you’re okay” – and that’s a tough way to live. I think a lot of us as we get older think, is there a healthy way to do what we’re doing? We didn’t start this [for our] mental health, but can we spin it at some point and be creative for normal positive reasons?
Cinematical: Having done this movie which was so much more personal and serious than your other films, do you feel inclined to continue going in that direction?
Apatow: I try to be very passionate about the movies I’m making. I can get passionate about something that’s ridiculous and absurd and silly in the same way I can be passionate about something that’s more intimate and thoughtful, but I just have to care about it. So I don’t know; as of right now, I’m trying not to think too much about what I’ll do next and see what strikes me, but every once and a while I think it would be great to do something really dumb next, really goofy, and just make people happy. Create a joy machine. But most of the time I think let’s do another really dark, melancholy movie about a different subject, and then I think, you know what? Maybe I need a longer rest (laughs). So I don’t know; I’ll just wait until someone needs a director for the 14th Harry Potter movie and hopefully I’ll be at the top of the list somewhere.
Cinematical: Do you have any idea what the next thing is going to be for you?
Apatow: I really don’t. I’ve never had two ideas in my head. I mean, my brain is completely blank. I covered a lot of ground with these last two movies, so I may need something to happen to me in life before I can write again. But I don’t know – then something hits you out of the blue and it could happen in an eighth of a second; oh, it’s that! And then you’re off to the races.
Cinematical: Whether they’re conscious or not, do you see ongoing or repeated themes emerging in or from your growing body of work?
Apatow: I don’t think about it consciously, but there are certain ideas that recur and then you start thinking to yourself, well, should I make sure that never happens in Cinematical: How much is there a degree of sort of self-satirization in this film, whether you’re taking direct jabs at your or Adam’s movies? Or, even if it’s not in the movie, how much do you guys sort of rib one another about the movies you make?
Apatow: Every time you make a movie, it’s a risk. It’s easy to take for granted the work of comedians, but it’s insanely hard to make people laugh out loud and be really happy for an hour and a half straight. And sometimes you do it with the silliest thing in the world and sometimes you do it in a more thoughtful way or emotional way, but it’s hard as hell (laughs). How I looked at that aspect of the movie was that this character valued being on top more than the quality of his movies, so he tried to make decent movies, but his ego made him try to hit a home run every time out. That being said, while we were making the movie, we kept saying, “we’d make Mer-Man right now!” There’s a funny version of Mer-Man, there’s a funny version of Redo. And it genuinely made us laugh; even though we knew we were goofing on movies like that, we also thought, we could probably do a good one of these!
But one thing I appreciated from Adam was that he never said, “oh don’t do that – people will think you’re goofing on me.” The truth is, I’m not goofing on Adam because Adam has a ridiculously wide range of movies he’s made. He’s just covered so much ground. Some are incredibly silly, some are truly experimental art films, and his level of success is so high he’s just been amazing for a very long time, and I don’t think George Simmons would have tried most of what Adam has tried to do. Again, there’s a subtle difference there, so it’s easy for people to say, “oh, you’re goofing on your own movies,” but I really thought what was more interesting to me was what happens when a shallow person gets sick? He doesn’t want to be thoughtful, so his movies can’t be thoughtful; he’s not making introspective comedies. When he gets sick, he doesn’t tell anybody, he doesn’t know how to talk about it – he’s not that kind of person. He’s more like a Rodney Dangerfield kind of person; he’s telling jokes and being silly.
Cinematical: What I think is one of the things he and the film communicates is that comedy is a way for someone to conceal their true feelings, and ultimately a prison that keeps them from being able to express them.
Apatow: Sometimes it’s easier to hide when you’re that famous. It was strange when Michael Jackson died and there were so many similarities to how we were presenting this fictionalized comedy star in our movie and what was coming out about Michael Jackson. The opening conversation about our movie is Adam having a conversation with his doctor about sleep medication. And all of these images of this rich guy alone in this giant house, never feeling satisfied with the amount of affection he’s getting from the world – which is an enormous amount of affection. A lot of times people want to make you laugh not because they want to make you happy but because they want to know if you like them. Your laugh signals “you’re okay” – and that’s a tough way to live. I think a lot of us as we get older think, is there a healthy way to do what we’re doing? We didn’t start this [for our] mental health, but can we spin it at some point and be creative for normal positive reasons?
Cinematical: Having done this movie which was so much more personal and serious than your other films, do you feel inclined to continue going in that direction?
Apatow: I try to be very passionate about the movies I’m making. I can get passionate about something that’s ridiculous and absurd and silly in the same way I can be passionate about something that’s more intimate and thoughtful, but I just have to care about it. So I don’t know; as of right now, I’m trying not to think too much about what I’ll do next and see what strikes me, but every once and a while I think it would be great to do something really dumb next, really goofy, and just make people happy. Create a joy machine. But most of the time I think let’s do another really dark, melancholy movie about a different subject, and then I think, you know what? Maybe I need a longer rest (laughs). So I don’t know; I’ll just wait until someone needs a director for the 14th Harry Potter movie and hopefully I’ll be at the top of the list somewhere.
Cinematical: Do you have any idea what the next thing is going to be for you?
Apatow: I really don’t. I’ve never had two ideas in my head. I mean, my brain is completely blank. I covered a lot of ground with these last two movies, so I may need something to happen to me in life before I can write again. But I don’t know – then something hits you out of the blue and it could happen in an eighth of a second; oh, it’s that! And then you’re off to the races.
Cinematical: Whether they’re conscious or not, do you see ongoing or repeated themes emerging in or from your growing body of work?
Apatow: I don’t think about it consciously, but there are certain ideas that recur and then you start thinking to yourself, well, should I make sure that never happens in one of my movies again? For instance, I like when sad people find a way to get happy, even if it’s only for a moment; should I avoid that now that I’ve noticed that in a bunch of my
fun14
movies? That’s an interesting question for me as I walk around the house. I can see the stitching on the ball now more than anybody, and then you start thinking about new terrain, but you also don’t want to suddenly make a movie about Icelandic people just because no one expects you to do that. I would like always to write about things that matter to me and I understand, but I was reading this graduation speech that Larry Gelbart delivered at UCLA a few years ago and a big hunk of it was about writing about things you don’t know anything about and how ultimately it will still become a personal story. I usually go against that, but I thought, well, if Mr. Gelbart says that then maybe my philosophy is wrong.
Cinematical: What was the thing that you took away from this experience that was maybe different than your other movies?
Apatow: Well, it’s much more challenging to make a movie that’s meant to be more than just fantasy fulfillment. It is hopefully a big, funny, enjoyable experience but it’s also kind of an independent movie, you know; it’s a character study, and it is a different world when you’re trying to have that relationship with the audience. A lot of people got to the movies just to numb themselves out from whatever other difficult things life is presenting to them, and I’m exactly like that; when a girl broke up with me, the first thing I did was run to see What About Bob? But this is the first time for me where I tried to share a more complicated experience with people. And you get a larger array of reactions to it – some people, it completely knocks them out, other people, you can tell that they emotionally shut down from thinking about any of this, and the movie is hard for them to tolerate. And that’s the point of it: it’s supposed to stick with you for a while. That’s all I thought about when we were ending it, and I hope people talk about this for a while. I hope it’s something that stays on people’s minds.
Making The (Up) Grade: Rocky
Making The (Up) Grade: Rocky
While new Blu-rays of old movies are sometimes dubious replacements for prior editions (hence the need for this column), box sets released in the high-definition format have thus far been fairly helpful, at least in terms of shelf space: many or most of them forego a lot of the frills and flourishes of their standard-definition iterations in favor of more streamlined packaging. Unfortunately, that’s also sometimes extended to their extras, thanks in no small part to the legal entanglements of transferring commentaries and bonus content from one format to another.
Both Warner Brothers and Fox have faced this challenge a couple of times thanks to their ownership/ adoption of the libraries of MGM and United Artists, which until a few years ago issued their own releases. Rocky, which is one of United Artists’ premier franchises, was recently released on Blu-ray in The Undisputed Collection, a set that contains all six of the films in the series, but it remains to be seen whether complete also means comprehensive in this particular case.
What’s Already Available:
Rocky was previously released several times on DVD both as a standalone title and in Rocky-themed box sets. 2006′s Rocky Anthology featured remastered versions of the first five films (it was released prior to Rocky Balboa) and no extra content. Meanwhile, a Special Edition of the first film was released in December of that same year and featured three commentaries, a three-part making of documentary called “In The Ring,” seven featurettes, TV spots and trailers, deleted scenes and a collectible booklet.
What’s In The New Set: The Undisputed Collection features all of the films as well as a bonus that has more than three hours of extras and special features. Additionally, all of the films are presented in high definition with 5.1 DTS-HD audio tracks, or in Rocky Balboa‘s case, English PCM 5.1 uncompressed audio.
What’s The Difference In The Movie Itself: Like many Blu-ray reissues of films more recently released or updated on DVD, the films basically feature the same transfers as their standard-definition version, albeit now presented in uncompressed high definition. Much like the DVD transfer for the ’06 edition, Rockyshows its age (and its initial price tag) with picture presentation that has a lot of grain and soft detail, but with the exception of the new film, which was transferred to HD when it was originally put on DVD, it by far looks the best of the series.
According to online information the ’06 Anthology set boasted remastered presentation of the other films as well, but here they’re all grainy and muted, with soft colors and a focus that quite frankly should be sharper in high definition. Meanwhile, in terms of the content of the films, they’re all the same as in previous sets, with no edits or changes implemented.
What’s The Difference In Everything Else: This set unfortunately is a victim, at least in part, of the same rules that kept the bonus materials for Robocop off of its Blu-ray release. None of the films have commentaries, which means that the first film lost all three of the existing ones, and the new ones, well, they never received (and one might argue, they never deserved) one. Further, almost all of the special features on Disc Seven are the same as the ones on the ’06 Rocky Special Edition, which begs the question why the commentaries couldn’t also carry over in addition to the featurettes and other stuff.
That said, the material is all genuinely interesting – a featurette about Steadicam inventor Garrett Brown explores a footnote in filmmaking history that is virtually unknown to anyone outside the industry – but again it would have been interesting to see something new among these existing extras, or in lieu of that a sort of one-stop set that collected everything together.
What’s The Final Grade: C. The appeal of the Rocky series is mostly predicated on personal experience – all of the films aren’t great – so if you saw certain ones at important times in your life (at least cinematically speaking), then this set is a must own. But for folks on the fence, the transfers are definitely not terrific, and the slate of extras is incomplete, especially if you’ve already spent some money on making this palooka a winner.
Shelf Life: The Professional
Shelf Life: The Professional
This week, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment released Leon: The Professional on Blu-ray, and because I have the best job in the world, I got to watch it for this column. The truth is that this was a formative movie for me, not only augmenting my budding cinephilia in terms of attention to and interest in strongly visual filmmakers, but in understanding the technical and artistic value of widescreen cinema. Before the film was released on widescreen VHS and later, DVD, I watched the pan-and-scan version when it was first released on video and almost got sick from the cropping and scanning of director Luc Besson‘s balletic camerawork.
Thankfully, I never have to watch it via that sort of butchered presentation again, and even if you don’t think the movie is a masterpiece, at the very least, SPHE’s new Blu-ray offers a gorgeously rich transfer that fully celebrates Besson’s cinematography. But even though this is a film I’ve revisited several times since its original release in 1994, I was curious to see how well The Professional would hold up some 15 years later – which brings us to this week’s “Shelf Life.”
The Facts: Released on November 18, 1994, The Professional (as it was called in the U.S.) was Luc Besson’s Hollywood real Hollywood breakthrough after helming La Femme Nikita and the French films Subway and The Big Blue. Although it received zero nominations from stateside critics groups, the film was nominated for seven Cesars (the French Academy Awards), including best music, best actor for Jean Reno, best director for Besson, and best picture. Ultimately the film only grossed about $20 million domestically, but it still maintains a respectable 74% fresh at Rotten Tomatoes. And of course, it introduced the world to Natalie Portman, whose performance as Mathilda is still one of the best in her entire career.
What Still Works: The relationship between Reno’s Leon and Portman’s Mathilda cements the film’s more visceral elements and truly elevates what could have been standard-fare (or even superlative) action to something more substantial. Besson has always been more of an intuitive and emotional filmmaker than an intellectual one – the them of his follow-up, The Fifth Element, is unapologetically “love conquers evil” – but here he perfectly balances the sentimentality of their budding bond with the harsh and inescapable realities of what Leon does for a living.
Remarkably, however, Besson creates one really fascinating scenario after the next, not only as a set piece to thrill the pulse, but one after another that focuses and utilizes the little character details that are introduced throughout the film. For example, Leon’s ongoing fitness regimen comes into play when he’s suspended over the doorway in a hotel room where he’s being attacked; or although Leon develops a great sense of humanity through his interactions with Mathilda, he also gains literacy, which helps him deal with Tony (Danny Aiello), much to Tony’s chagrin. At the same time, these little details aren’t overstated, nor are the backgrounds and back stories of the characters, so that when Tony mentions Leon’s troubled history with women, it conveys his emotional immaturity without needing to provide a concrete description of how and why he ended up in the states as a hitman for an Italian bookie.
What Doesn’t Work: Surprisingly little, although anyone who was already troubled by the film’s vaguely romantic coupling of Leon and Mathilda will be no more reassured 15 years later. Some of this is emphasized in the extended cut (which with the release of this Blu-ray is for the first time available on the same disc as the theatrical version), but in both, Besson doesn’t skirt the idea that Mathilda has been forced to grow up faster than she might be ready for, which is why she seems to be exploring her budding womanhood when she talks to Leon – which produces appropriately outrageous results.
But the subtle examination of this mentor/ parent-child/ romantic relationship is just one part of the film, and the movie is fairly clear in suggesting that such a coupling would be inappropriate – not the least of which because she often seems more mature than he does – and rescues the film from turning into something other than a redemption story for these two characters.
What’s The Verdict: As Leon or The Professional, Besson’s film holds up beautifully, not only from a thematic and emotional standpoint but technically: in every frame of film, you can see that Besson is a born filmmaker, creating a fluidity and a beauty in his set pieces that emphasizes both the energy of the sequence and its emotional foundations. Personally I think that the two versions are equally good, if only because as interesting as the sequences are of Mathilda and Leon actually doing jobs together, the extended cut runs a little bit long and seems unnecessary in telling the core story of Leon and Mathilda’s relationship with one another; but as a quasi-irresponsible tale of a little girl who becomes a hitman or a hitman who regains his humanity with the help of a little girl, The Professional is a truly fantastic film, and still one of my all-time favorites.
