The Bracketology of Film Deaths

March Madness aside, the fun of bracketology comes from forcing the player to keep choosing between two favorite things. A recent Slate article applied the concept to film deaths as an example, and I couldn’t resist finding out which death scene topped my list. Click below to see my bracket choices.

Even though you can’t choose which film deaths are included, the bracket presents a good mix of pop culture favorites and cinematic classics. DiCaprio’s drowning in Titanic vs. the shooting of Bambi’s mother? Bonnie and Clyde’s bullet-riddled end vs. Walken’s unlucky turn at Russian roulette in The Deer Hunter? The early match-ups provided for juicy encounters.

My choices as the bracket narrowed seemed to indicate a preference for darkly comedic film deaths, as opposed to straight-up gore. Everything went well until I arrived at the final two. On one hand, the Wicked Witch’s melting in The Wizard of Oz barely beat out one of my favorite film endings in The Bridge on the River Kwai. On the other hand, the bomb-riding scene from Dr. Strangelove squeaked past the shower scene from Psycho and made the final match-up.

I was stuck. Both death scenes carry a certain absurd quality that I enjoy, so I decided to review them.

 

Dr. Strangelove remains a classic because it applies black comedy to the unparalleled threat of nuclear holocaust, and this famous scene of Major “Kong” riding a nuke down to oblivion is emblematic of that. The bomb’s phallic nature gains emphasis when straddled by a whooping and hollering Texan, played by actor (and rodeo performer) Slim Pickens. That plays into one of the main themes of Strangelove concerning war and certain machismo - just watch the film and see why the Cold War could have heated up over an imagined conspiracy to steal a general’s “precious bodily fluids.” How many death scenes can claim the spectacle of combining full-blown male virility with the sterility of nuclear destruction?

The Wizard of Oz remains one of the most well known films in Americana, and the Wicked Witch of the West remains one of the most recognizable film villains. She not only hearkens back to a time when film villains really, really looked like villains, but also recalls crone-like figures who inspired torch-wielding mobs back in the medieval ages. Her death smacks of a fantastically absurd quality which may echo our equally fantastical conceptions of evil. They don’t make death scenes like this anymore - at least not with the film villain bemoaning the loss of their “beautiful wickedness” while dying.

I suppose that Strangelove has the advantage of reflecting a real fear of death, while The Wizard of Oz refers to something that’s more out of a childhood nightmare. Yet I’m sure many of us can admit to being haunted as children by visions of a cackling witch flying outside the bedroom window … right? Right?

I think the choice may come down to cynicism vs. a sunnier outlook. Strangelove’s bomb drop represents the culmination of a historical (and current) fear, while the Wicked Witch’s melting represents the extinguishing of a childhood nightmare.* I suspect I would make different choices depending on the day.

* The Witch’s melting is a relief, unless you know the revisionist story Wicked. Then the event simply becomes tragic … I was surprised to see that some of the YouTube generation was only familiar with Wicked.

Atonement: The Lies We Tell Ourselves

 

“Atonement” ended up earning my respect for its story-within-a-story approach to examining where the truth lies between fiction and reality. Or more accurately, what lies people tell one another and themselves to cover up emotional scarring or repair damaged relationships.

Without giving away too many story details, “Atonement” involves several crucial scenes where lies become tools to ward off the harsh bite of reality setting in. The film’s story turns on one lie in particular, when a girl interprets several adult acts though the lens of early adolescent emotion and confusion.

From there the story goes on to examine lies in other contexts, such as the British evacuation from Dunkirk during the early days of WWII. The propaganda reels play up the “Miracle of Dunkirk” that saved the bulk of the British army from falling to the advancing Wermacht - on the other hand, it all rather resembles covering your bleeding ass with the flag of victory. But perhaps Great Britain needed that national lie to get through the bitter years that would follow, with Nazi Germany triumphant in Europe and seemingly poised to invade at any moment.

The girl also grows up, and learns more about the nature of lies as sometimes self-serving, sometimes acts of kindness. By the end, she even resorts to applying a fictional gloss to her life’s story. That becomes the central struggle for “Atonement,” whether the sweet lies of fiction can redeem when lies in real life tend to destroy.

I think the idea of fiction as the comforting lie can’t be denied, at least in many cases. Fiction smooths out the creases in the fabric of reality and makes life more understandable, more comprehensible, and perhaps more livable for many people. Many fictional stories also opt for the happy ending that doesn’t typically doesn’t exist, but promises some reward for all that real toil and struggle.

The idea of self-delusion through fiction sounds rather repulsive, on one hand. Yet perhaps it’s part of the necessary toolbox for human survival, not unlike the “Miracle of Dunkirk” being a necessary national lie for Great Britain to persevere and ultimately survive.

Of course, that’s just certain types of fiction. Other fictional stories hew eerily close to reality and serve a different purpose - I think most of us don’t watch “City of God” or “The Wire” for pleasurable escapism.

“Atonement” manages to find a balance. While it provides a thoughtful deliberation on the truths in life and art, the story also romanticizes the suffering of its pair of lovers … and so perhaps answers its own question about the fictional lie.

P.S. I found it amusing that the novel “Atonement” by famed author Ian McEwan seemed to take some inspiration from an autobiography. I don’t know how much credence to give to the plagiarism accusations, but I think that fiction has always fed off of reality - even as it reshapes that reality to more our liking. Some authors are simply more clever about hiding their tracks leading back to the real world.

When Journalists Do Fiction: The Wire

If you’re a Baltimore Sun journalist who works tirelessly to cover the darker side of City Hall and street gangs alike, your stories may never get attention and readers beyond Baltimore. But turn those stories into a gritty HBO series called “The Wire,” and you suddenly reach far more people than you could ever have as a journalist.

That’s the tale of David Simon, former newsman and creator of that critically-beloved show. “The Wire” averaged 4.4 million viewers per episode last season and suffered a ratings drop to around 1 million viewers this season - hardly numbers to boast about in television. But considering how many people might have bothered to read a similar series of newspaper stories, that still demonstrates the astounding power that fictional stories have when compared with straight-up journalism or documentaries.

Comparing newspaper and television stories is not quite fair, yet the general idea holds up when comparing documentary films with Hollywood dramas based on the same events. A New York Times article looks at this year’s Oscar-nominated documentaries that largely focus on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On one hand there is Taxi to the Dark Side, a highly praised documentary about the abuses of prisoners taken in the “War on Terror,” while on the other hand there is Rendition starring Reese Witherspoon as a woman whose husband is captured and tortured by the C.I.A. on suspicion of terrorism.

The harsh numerical fact, though, is that a box office flop like “Rendition,” which made just under $10 million and played in 2,250 theaters, will reach more people than most successful documentaries.

There’s little doubt that most people probably view fiction as more entertaining than documentaries or journalistic accounts. That’s because fiction takes full advantage of storytelling to get readers and viewers inside the heads of characters, and make the readers and viewers empathize with those characters’ situations.

Documentary filmmakers and journalists can also take advantage of storytelling in nonfiction. As a young journalist, I constantly learned to use storytelling as a tool that can wedge open complex topics (read: science and technology) for ordinary readers who possess even the slightest sense of curiosity. This suits me because I love stories, fiction and nonfiction alike, whether spoken, written, on stage, on television, in movie theaters, or even in video games.

However, good documentaries and journalistic accounts can only go so far with their stories because they are constrained by sticking with the facts. A recent Atlantic Monthly article about “The Wire” tries to make this distinction.

The essential difference between writing nonfiction and writing fiction is that the artist owns his vision, while the journalist can never really claim one, or at least not a complete one - because the real world is infinitely complex and ever changing. Art frees you from the infuriating unfinishedness of the real world. For this reason, the very clarity of well-wrought fiction can sometimes make it feel more real than reality.

People will always gravitate towards stories, because they make sense of the world even if the world does not. That means fiction will likely always have greater attraction than nonfiction accounts, because of the freedom fiction has to impose a writer’s sense of order on reality.

That power of storytelling has its dangers, though. People may fall in love with the allure of a story that makes sense of things, and ignore the actual realities of the world and its history. This happens all the time in fictional films based on historical events, such as The Patriot’s convenient glossing-over of slavery during the American Revolution. Documentaries and journalistic accounts can also fall into the trap, such as when the media tries to impose narratives on candidates such as Obama or Clinton to make sense of the 2008 presidential race.

The Atlantic Monthly article arose from the strange position of pointing out that “The Wire” should not be confused with reality. That’s because the current season of the show takes aim at creator David Simon’s former employer, The Baltimore Sun, which Simon had serious disagreements with over journalistic values.

I can’t comment on the dispute and whether Simon’s depiction of his former newspaper will be accurate. Having only seen a few episodes of “The Wire,” I was impressed by the starkly realistic portrayals of city officials, police detectives, and gang members going about their business in a remarkably similar fashion. If I get around to watching the entire series someday, I’ll try to absorb whatever Simon has to say in his dark vision of the modern American city - but I won’t accept it as the only truth. After all, there’s always other stories to hear, and journalists should try to hear as many as possible.

Links:

“The Angriest Man in Television,” The Atlantic Monthly

“Where the Real Action Is,” The New York Times

Return to Brokeback: End of Writers’ Strike Means a Better Oscars

The end of the writers’ strike means one important thing for me in the immediate future – the Oscars will be infinitely more bearable to watch with the combination of Jon Stewart and his Daily Show writers, and particularly if “There Will Be Blood” or “No Country for Old Men” win best picture. I still remember the 2006 Oscars with fondness, when John Stewart showed us the other side of western classics such as Red River and Shane. Who knew, Gregory Peck and Charlton Heston…who knew.

There Will Be Blood (But Why So Serious?)

Whether it’s “Amadeus” or “The Bridge on the River Kwai,” there’s something enthralling about watching a story end on a character who has mentally gone over the edge. The much-lauded Paul Thomas Anderson film “There Will Be Blood” is similarly fascinating in its sanguinary climax. Daniel Day Lewis inhabits a character who might be deemed a misanthrope at best, a borderline sociopath at worst, but who still retains recognizable threads of humanity that allows viewers to empathize with the self-made oilman.Lewis has a history of approaching each film role rigorously, working to literally become his characters and refusing to leave their personas until the films are finished. The notion of living in the mindset of a fundamentally disturbed character isn’t new for him, as evidenced in a recent interview with The Independent where he discusses a previous turn as Bill the Butcher in “Gangs of New York.”

He trained as a butcher, caught pneumonia while on set (having refused to change his threadbare coat for a warmer one because it hadn’t existed in the 19th century), and wandered about Rome (where Gangs was filmed) in character, fighting strangers. “I had to do my preparation,” he says with a grin. “And I will admit that I went mad, totally mad. I remembered the days of fighting on the Millwall terraces and they stood me in good stead for Bill the Butcher. He was a bit of a punk, a marvellous character and a joy to be – but not so good for my physical or mental health.”

So perhaps it was appropriate that Lewis offered tribute at the Screen Actors Guild Awards to the recently deceased Heath Ledger, who had only just finished filming the upcoming Batman sequel “The Dark Knight.” There Ledger appeared to achieve a stunning transformation into the infamous villain The Joker, altering far more than simply his voice in the process. He described his metamorphosis in an interview excerpt from Empire magazine (courtesy of The Tipster).

“I sat around in a hotel room in London for about a month, locked myself away, formed a little diary and experimented with voices … I ended up landing more in the realm of a psychopath — someone with very little to no conscience towards his acts. He’s just an absolute sociopath, a cold-blooded, mass-murdering clown, and Chris has given me free rein. Which is fun, because there are no real boundaries to what the Joker would say or do. Nothing intimidates him, and everything is a big joke.”

These acting approaches seem to be no less than a form of world creation, if the world is contained within the human mind. I suspect that many good actors have mastered this to some extent, as it allows them to essentially see and act though the filters of their characters’ personalities. That ability to inhabit another person’s mind also allows writers to imagine the characters in the first place, and viewers to empathize with those characters on the big screen.

Naturally, actors express appreciation when they get to work on a film set that resembles the world they are trying to inhabit. But most of the acting process still seems situated in the mind, and I think that’s where the best actors can work well. Witness how easily many stage actors transition to film, as they are used to working with minimal props and doing the process of world creation within their minds.

Lewis and Ledger appear to have shared the challenge of entering incredibly dark and disturbing worlds within their characters’ minds. Both talked about the psychological wear and tear of inhabiting such characters, and in Ledger’s case that may have contributed at least indirectly to his untimely death. Yet both appear to have created indelible film characters in the process, and for that viewers can only be grateful for actors who demonstrate so much dedication to their craft.

*See Daniel Day Lewis’ tribute to Heath Ledger at the Screen Actors Guild Awards.

A Cliffhanger for the 2007-2008 TV Season?

The point of no return is drawing near for the 2007-2008 TV season, according to E! Online. If the Writers Guild of America does not reach an agreement with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers by mid-February, it’s pretty much curtains when it comes to expecting new episodes anytime soon for shows ranging from “The Office” to “Lost” and “Battlestar Galactica.”

I mention those shows in particular because they factor into my weekly TV lineup. “The Office” ended rather unceremoniously in fall 2007 after the writer’s strike began, while “Lost” and “Battlestar” will run shortened seasons starting in January and April, respectively. Perhaps the informal talks between the writers and producers this coming week will break the ice … perhaps.

Much as I’ll regret missing episodes should the strike continue, I do support the writers in principle. The shift to the online format for television is a foregone conclusion, and so the renegotiation of writer payment had to happen sooner than later. If that still doesn’t sound convincing, take a look at the writers’ strike blog and read essays on their motivations for getting into the business (figures they would also like the WordPress pen layout).

Despite the chaos of this TV season, I still managed to add one new show to my lineup. “Pushing Daisies” may feel like fluff next to the close-to-home comedy of “The Office,” or the drama-laden “Lost” and “Battlestar Galactica,” but I doubt I’ll find another piece of fluff with half as much charm and wit. Incidentally, that’s also the order that the shows go in from deceptively cheery to broodingly dark. Smiles and cries … smiles and cries.

A Review: “Pushing Daisies”

He’s an introverted pie-maker who can restore life with one touch (but second touch dead forever). She’s the childhood friend next door who was murdered and then brought back to life. They fight crime!

That description gives the bare bones idea behind the surprisingly entertaining “Pushing Daisies,” a new show in the 2007-2008 season. Any initial skepticism on my part about the premise of two lovers (one formerly dead) who can never touch evaporated quickly, thanks to the quirky characters and amusing plots built on a whodunit format.

Unlike crime shows where forensics teams employ the latest science to solve murders, pie-maker Ned (Lee Pace) simply uses his unnatural touch to bring the dead back to life and ask who murdered them. After a minute of interrogation, Ned touches them again to return them to their repose - or else they stay alive and the great balance in the sky causes someone else to fall dead. But the person returned to life still can’t touch Ned, else they become dead for good.

Ned reluctantly uses his gift for crime-solving thanks to the prodding of private eye Emerson Cod (Chi McBride), whose eyes are usually on the reward money for solving various murders. This tidy setup gets complicated when one murder victim turns out to be none other than Charlotte “Chuck” Charles (Anna Friel), Ned’s childhood sweetheart, and Ned can’t will himself to zap her before sixty seconds are up. Chuck’s sudden appearance in Ned’s life also creates suspicion and envy on the part of Olive Snook (Kristin Chenoweth), the waitress who works with Ned in running his restaurant called “The Pie Hole.”

The recurrence of dead bodies at the heart of each week’s mystery means the show treats death as a common part of life - a source of sadness, yes, but also humor. The bright palettes of the show create a world infused with magical realism, turning real life into a storybook tale with the help of narrator Jim Dale (who also did the Harry Potter books-on-tape, apparently).

There’s always the danger of falling into cute overload with this kind of story, but “Pushing Daises” manages to walk a fine line between sweet and snark. I do have to wonder sometimes if the premise will sustain the series beyond a season, even with character secrets and backgrounds still slowly unfolding. Still, I can definitely appreciate a show where characters will sing snatches of TMBG’s “Birdhouse in Your Soul,” or wonder if a suspect has “gone all ‘Blood Simple’.”

*** All seasons of “Lost” can be viewed in HD on ABC’s website - ditto for the beginning and most recent episodes of “Pushing Daisies.” The fourth season of “The Office” is available through NBC.

The Sims Tackle Teen Pregnancy, Cosmetic Surgery, and Eating Disorders.

Back when I still counted myself a student, I blogged on Scienceline about players of the popular video game series “The Sims” and “The Sims 2″ making music videos. I suggested that using video games to make short CGI films (known as machinima) may point toward a future when video games evolve into advanced tools for creating mainstream films, music videos, and ads. At least one big company is already experimenting (or cross-marketing), as seen in Ford’s surprising use of the online game World of Warcraft. HBO has also acquired a short-form documentary that’s shot entirely in another online game, Second Life.

Although the technological tools look promising, the content of most machinima is arguably still focused on pure entertainment. Many Sims players create music video adaptations of current pop and rock songs that reflect, well, MTV-style music videos. But one video stood out with its use of the Lily Allen song “Everything’s Just Wonderful” to provide social commentary about society’s obsession with body image. The subject may be cringe-worthy, but the video is fairly impressive.

 

 

A Covert War of Words

“Charlie Wilson’s War” had my attention as soon as I saw Aaron Sorkin’s name attached, namely because the creator of “The West Wing” does a fine job of distilling political actors into real people worthy of empathy. The word-smith doesn’t disappoint in his latest venture that explores the life and times of Charlie Wilson, a Democratic Senator from Texas who helped channel millions of U.S. dollars to fund the Afghan mujahideen rebels fighting Soviet troops during the 1980s.

The film contains constant and sometimes unexpected reminders of the current political scene. A certain presidential candidate’s name pops up as the zealous federal prosecutor seeking to nail Wilson for his bacchanalian pursuits. One prescient line from Julia Robert’s character indirectly references the Bhutto incident in Pakistan, making the audience in my theater stir noticeably. Then there’s Afghanistan, where Wilson’s efforts helped arm and train the rebels who drove out the Soviets, yes, but also probably helped arm and train many of the mujahideen currently fighting NATO troops as the resurgent Taliban.

That last point is something the film does not emphasize, instead burnishing Wilson’s image as the sole guy who tried to continue funding for Afghan reconstruction following the Soviet-Afghan War. But Sorkin and the creative team behind the film isn’t to blame.

Instead, there’s a fascinating back-story on how the real life Charlie Wilson and his ex-fiancée/fund-raising muse Joanne Herring “detonated” parts of the Sorkin script that apportioned part of the blame for today’s troubles to them. The film originally even ended on a 9/11 shot of the smoking Pentagon. Fred Schruers has additional details in a Portfolio.com blog.

Quibbles aside, “Charlie Wilson’s War” remains one of the more informative and entertaining films to come out this year. Tom Hanks does an excellent flawed-but-likable portrayal of Charlie Wilson, while Philip Seymour Hoffman’s acting presence expands well beyond his on-screen bulk as a CIA agent and partner-in-crime. Amy Adams smartly plays the bright Congressional aide who puts up with Wilson’s antics but tells him when he should know better. Finally, Julia Roberts … does what she does as the wealthy, fiercely religious Joanne Herring who makes the Afghan cause her own crusade.

The entire cast chews the Sorkin screenplay that sparks with the writer’s usual wit and verve. If Sorkin glosses over some historical aspects for the sake of drama and to avoid lawsuits from the real-life characters, it’s forgivable in the story. Or maybe I was just too bemused by my lack of neglected shabby knowledge about of Afghanistan to notice, after realizing I had told my friend that Kandahar was Afghanistan’s capital. At least I remembered it became the seat of power for the Taliban (they’re still hanging around, by the way).

For those interested in the film beyond the trailer, see this somewhat spoiler-ish scene featuring Hanks, Hoffman and Adams.

For the Love of a Good War Scene

One of the film entrées for this year’s awards season is “Atonement,” a lavish treatment of an Ian McEwan novel about a young girl’s secret misunderstanding tearing two lovers apart. But romance aside, people are buzzing about a five and a half minute long scene depicting the British evacuation from Dunkirk during the fall of France in early World War II. The lengthy shot follows several characters as they wend their way among discarded equipment, vehicles, and tired soldiers on the beach. (SPOILERS in the following videos)

Having not seen the film or read the novel, I have to wonder about the importance of this war scene within the larger story. Does protagonist Robbie (James McAvoy) suffer some lasting trauma from the horrors of warfare, or does he merely struggle with that age-old problem of a lover’s exile from Cecilia (Keira Knightley)?

I can understand if a story focused on other themes chooses to use war as just a plot device or backdrop that’s stripped of broader context. But some film directors seem to fall in love with the awful grandeur of war on the big screen, and end up producing lavish scenes that demand audience attention while doing little for the main plot.

Take the 2003 film “Cold Mountain,” which follows the odyssey of Confederate soldier Inman (Jude Law) as he tries to return to Ada (Nicole Kidman) during the American Civil War. The film opens with the horrific Battle of the Crater during the siege of Petersburg, when Union troops explode a gaping hole in the Confederate lines and end up in a slaughter as they try to exploit their advantage.

The result is a cinematic spectacle which assaults the senses and likely leaves a deep impression in viewer’s minds. But such a scene doesn’t even exist in the original “Cold Mountain” novel by Charles Frazier, which instead opens with Inman already wounded in a hospital.

Or consider the 2002 film “The Four Feathers,” a mess of a story about a young British officer (Heath Ledger) who’s branded a coward by three friends and his betrothed and sets out to prove them wrong. The film is set against the backdrop of British colonialism in Sudan, but gives viewers little reason to care about the colonial conflicts — or any of the characters for that matter.

The film’s sole memorable scene comes courtesy of the Battle of Abu Klea, which it strangely depicts as a British defeat instead of the historic victory against the Mahdist forces. Again, the viewer is left feeling distanced from the pageantry.

There’s no denying that war-related scenes can make for stirring cinema even within romantic story arcs - see “Gone With the Wind” or “Last of the Mohicans.” Maybe that’s a good enough reason for directors to justify spending a good portion of their film budget on scenes employing hundreds of extras and some technical wizardry.

Perhaps Atonement will be among the better films that weaves together personal narratives and the larger historical context, or explores the psychological effects of trial and separation through war. Critics like the film well enough, so I may end up seeing it at some point.

Two Story Adaptations of “His Dark Materials”

There’s two ways to publicize a story adaptation where the main themes involve controversial attacks on organized religion. One way uses a website to market the story adaptation as an innocuous product – a fantasy adventure for the whole family, and just in time for the holidays! The other way offers an online, behind-the-scenes featurette exploring a scene where a Church official orders the torture of a witch.

Those two approaches represent the film and stage adaptations of His Dark Materials, a trilogy of novels by Philip Pullman that reverses traditional Christian views of good and evil (ala Paradise Lost). God becomes a decrepit shell of a tyrant, epitomized in the oppressive Magisterium (Church) that engages in dubious activities such as kidnapping, torture, and assassination. Similarly, the “Fall of Man” into original sin within the Garden of Eden instead becomes a moment of liberation for humanity. Rather than shrinking away from sexuality as cause for Earthly temptation and downfall, Pullman celebrates the moment where his young Eve and Adam awaken to their desires.

This does not sound like your typical holiday fare, but New Line Cinema gambled that moviegoers would gravitate towards the story’s intriguing fantasy world where human “souls” are embodied in animal companions called daemons. However, critics sounded off on the first film in the series, “The Golden Compass,” complaining of a cold cinematic treatment that strips both the controversy and magic out of the story.

The film’s website reflects a similar sterility in its marketing approach. Fantasy elements such as an armored polar bear character are front and center, while no mention is made of the story’s more controversial aspects. The film itself removes any references to organized religion, so that one could view the Magisterium as simply a totalitarian regime.

By contrast, an earlier adaptation of “His Dark Materials” by London’s Royal National Theatre does not shy away from the story’s treatment of organized religion and other issues. The superbly designed website from the 2003-2005 production confronts some of the story’s more controversial scenes with videos and even an interactive sequence. By watching how the theater staged the witch-torture scene, or seeing the director and actors discuss different ways to depict the emotional climax between the story’s figurative Eve and Adam, viewers don’t just learn about the story’s more interesting issues - they also learn something about the creative process that occurs for every story and story adaptation.

*Addendum - Watch Philip Pullman explain his view on religion and spirituality