from the Wikipedia entry:

Selling out” refers to the compromising of one’s integrity, morality and principles in exchange for money, success or other personal gain. It especially refers to the attempt to increase social appeal or acceptability through this compromising. The person who acts in this way is referred to as a “sell out.

My friend Chris from NY – with whom I worked on a few Jon Fordham projects – is in town to 1st AC a low budget indie film. He crashed at my pad for a few nights and we had a little bit of time to catch up – see what’s been up with each other and how the rest of the gang back doing the film hustle are doing. The conversation shifted focus to what I’ve been doing the past year and what things will look like from here on out.

Now I’ve been very open on this forum about this topic, but I’ve only really discussed it with a couple of my film friends from the “old world.” There was a certain disappointment in his voice when I mentioned that it’s likely I’d be leaving the fellowship of freelance film professionals. He has known many creative folks who made the choice to leave the hustle for a lifestyle that would provid a bit more financial stability. Chris mentioned many of these guys had the intention of getting back in the game once things were handled. And to no one’s surprise, many haven’t come back. While he understood that people need to reshuffle priorities, I think he fears that people who make this decision are closing the book.

Chris is a good guy. He’s a great technician and has aspirations – like many people in the film industry – to write and direct. He realizes that he deals with crappy rates and uninspiring AC jobs are just the means to the eventual end of producing his own projects. But unlike me, Chris could never be a desk monkey. Because I’ve done it in the past, I don’t mind it. In most cases, I actually like it! I know I can excel in the corporate hustle which would not only provide me with the relative financial stability which has eluded me over the past 3 years, but can give me the means to support my passions (snowboarding and movies). He couldn’t see that I’m doing the same thing as he is – our methods of obtaining a paycheck just differ.

I assured him that there’s still a hunger and thirst for me produce my own projects. But I don’t need to be working in the biz to do it. Chris contends that being on the sidelines (working on sets day in and day out) keeps the fires burning for pursing his own projects. I feel that. But I know that though my motivation wanes here and there, that desire to tell stories and make movies will always be there. Besides, I have friends that won’t ever let me stop creating – friends like Chris, Jon, Albert, Chuck, Dave, Emory and Tess.

A co-worker of mine with whom I discuss movies blogged about his thoughts about the Oscar-nominated The Hurt Locker. Now Bradford is much, MUCH more critical of movies than I am. And while I don’t always agree with his assessments, I do appreciate the criticism he offers. If you don’t want to read the post, he complains the films overuse of war movie conventions cliches. What struck me were his comments regarding the protagonist Sgt. James played by Jeremy Renner.

He claims there wasn’t much character growth – at least not enough to sympathize with the character as he encounters physical and emotional obstacles throughout the story. It occurred to me that there are parallels with Sgt. James and Ryan Bingham, the protagonist in another Oscar-nominated film, Up in the Air.

Here are some excerpts from his blog post and the ensuing comments:

[AS PER USUAL, THERE ARE SPOILERS]

From Bradford’s post:

I would have loved to see Sgt. James CHANGE throughout the course of the movie. Maybe see him get more and more addicted to his job, have him start his tour with all the hope in the world, only to lose it bit by bit. Or have him start his tour completely brainwashed, but find something more important within himself outside the confines of the battlefield. ANYTHING would have been more intriguing. But instead, we got a bunch of losers who stay losers in the course of two hours. How pathetic!

I replied with this:

You say you wanted Sgt. James to CHANGE more, but I actually wanted him to change less. I felt that while it is important to have your protagonist discover something to fight for, his character just wasn’t built for that. And because of this, I never really bought the transformation that was hinted to at the end of the 2nd and into the 3rd act.

You suggest that there really isn’t an arc, but I think there is. You see him react to his surroundings and his subsequent choices go against how the character was set up. He just comes to the realization that this “new” Sgt. James isn’t for him. He makes a bad call, learns from it.

I kind of want to compare him to Ryan Bingham from Up in the Air. You see Ryan in his comfort zone and is forced to scrutinize his entire existence – what he really wants out of his life – because of a change in company policy. He goes through the motions and suddenly, he makes noble, yet characteristically unsound decisions. He gets burned and in the end you’re wondering has he REALLY changed?

Now perhaps this is where The Hurt Locker misses its opportunity. I never felt that connection with Sgt. James like I did with Ryan Bingham. Sure, the whole war thing is a bit less accessible than life in the corporate world, but if you put Ryan Bingham’s experience into Sgt. James, would you have liked it better?

Then Bradford’s reply:

I wasn’t even aware there was a hint of “transformation.” When Sgt. James wandered off to find the boy’s parents, I thought it was a foolish script twist instead of an attempt at developing his character.

I did not even see a beat where he realizes anything. The only thing that matters to him is his mission, and the outcomes seemed to have no bearing on his character. Yes, he makes a bad call and learns accordingly, but just because a kid learns to not fall off his bike, it does not exactly change or develop who he/she is.

Why do we empathize with Ryan Bingham? Maybe we don’t. I felt like Up in the Air was equally a visual punishment as it was a moral tale. Bingham is lonely, yes, and we have all felt lonely before. But Bingham chooses to be disconnected from people, like how Sgt. James chooses to go to war.

The difference? Bingham actually realizes something essential and proactively TRIES to improve his life. Has he really changed? I think so. Just a hint. Sure, he goes back on the road because his one attempt failed, but he is wiser for the ware. I can appreciate that.

Sgt. James, on the other hand, stays an arrogant loser. I don’t think he proactively tries to do anything. If nothing else, he learns that war is where he belongs. How pitiful. There is nothing hopeful, interesting, enlightening, or likable about that. It isn’t even a “dark” or “badass” revelation, since from the start, he already enjoys defusing bombs.

And me again:

“Bingham actually realizes something essential and proactively TRIES to improve his life.”

That’s it right there. With Up in the Air, the audience can see the value of not living solitary life. You can understand the value of relationships – mainly because Reitman hits you over the head with all the interview footage. With The Hurt Locker, you never really care WHY it’s important that Sgt. James goes to look for the kid’s family – important to the character.

And Bradford’s final comment:

Exactly.

I didn’t understand how or why Sgt. James went after the kid’s parents. That was the point where the movie lost me.

I thought, maybe Sgt. James was thinking about his own son? Nope. He showed no regard for his son or wife when he returned… it was pitiful.

In fact, if there was such an intended parallel between the two boys, we should have seen James with his family BEFOREHAND. THAT would have motivated the move entirely.

Oh well.

I enjoyed The Hurt Locker, but I wonder how that film would fare if it didn’t come out in the summer when the popcorn movies run circles around the more “serious, Oscar-bait” fare. Had the film been release in November or December would it have received as much praise as it is currently getting?

To expound a bit on my thoughts of Sgt. James, I too felt uncomfortable when he went to go find the kid. It is certainly interesting psychology for Sgt. James to feel more connected to an Iraqi kid than his own son, but something felt off about the development of that relationship. I suppose that’s what we want from our soldiers – we want to know that Capt. John Miller (Saving Private Ryan) was a schoolteacher. We want to see that Sgt. James isn’t just a badass who is really good at his job – that he secretly longs for an emotional connection in a war-time situation. But you either go all in or you don’t go at all.

If you keep Sgt. James as a cold, hard war machine, that’s fine. You have the opportunity to show how his persona affects the supporting characters, the other two guys in his company. The story arc would revolve around them and NOT Sgt. James – the way you see Natalie Keener’s (Anna Kendrick in Up in the Air) character evolve because of her experiences traveling all over the country with Ryan Bingham (George Clooney).

But then you have an entirely different movie.

While I enjoyed most of this series, I always wonder – much like Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles – what could’ve been. Throughout its 2 season run, there have been some gems, some lumps of coal, and a whole lot of mediocrity. I especially liked how it built some momentum at the end of first season which carried into most of the second season. The unaired “Epitaph One” episode was probably arguably the best and served as the framework for how the second season wrapped up. I wish Fox could’ve aired Epitaph One for audiences that didn’t rush out to buy/rent the Dollhouse season 1 DVD (I mean, if we we watched it week-to-week, why would we?)

I can’t help but feel a bit unfulfilled. It was building to a solid finale with episodes “The Attic” and “Getting Closer” where you learn what exactly Caroline knows. There were some great payoffs here and some great reversals with Adele DeWitt and Dr. Saunders/Whiskey. All this made for entertaining television until the final two episodes “The Hollow Men” and “Epitaph Two: Return” were ultimately underwhelming.

In “The Hollow Men,” revealing Boyd as the mastermind behind everything was interesting but I felt his reasoning was glazed over too quickly. I get the sense the wrtiers felt there was enough ambiguity with his character’s background to pull a stunt like this, but didn’t give the audience enough time to put it together without having long expository scenes. It would’ve been nice to see that story unfold over three episodes.

There was an especially unwatchable scene in this episode between Paul Ballard and Mellie/November. It’s a crime that Tammoh Penniket (Helo from BSG) can still get roles where he has to emote. He is just horribly bad in this scene. (I remain convinced that the the less Ballard and Echo in an episode, the better it really is)

I really wish I watched “Epitaph One” again before “Epitaph Two: Return.” In fact, I think it probably should’ve been a 2-hour episode – or 90 minutes, at least. Whenever you flash forward a few years, you can’t just expect the audience to swallow all the changes that have occurred. With “Epitaph One,” the focus was on the tech. In this one, not only do you have to focus on the tech, but also create resolutions for all the characters. But to do that, you have to show what these characters have been doing up until you moved ahead in the timeline. Sure, they got the point across with some exposition and you can follow the story, but I suppose I felt I was owed a bit more. I would’ve liked to see the deterioration of Sierra and Victor’s relationship. I would’ve loved to see Echo’s inability to show affection towards Ballard. I would’ve loved to see Topher’s steady decline into madness. There were some scenes in the finale with emotion at the core, but without solid context, you will not connect with the audience.

I suppose this is what happens when you find out you only have so many episodes left before you’re done. You have to take shortcuts to tie up the loose ends AND give the characters the resolution they should get. And I suppose this is why I can’t help but think of what could’ve been with this show. It is what it is, so they say.

But all in all, it was a pretty good run. With the exception of Echo and Ballard, I’m sure the actors will find better jobs – specifically Enver Gjokaj (Victor) who steals every scene when he’s imprinted with Topher Brink, Dichen Lachman (Sierra/Priya) who really showed her chops when they did the Priya backstory episode (Belonging)*, and Olivia Williams (Adele DeWitt) who admirably played ruthless and motherly at the same time.

* Belonging was directed by Jonathan Frakes of Star Trek: The Next Generation fame. This was probably one of the best-directed episodes of television I’ve seen in a LONG time. Performances were great and there was an excellent use of motifs and imagery that you rarely notice in episodic and serialized TV today.

[NOTE: I've added to this post below]

This happens to me every year. The relationship blossoms brilliantly. I am enamored by the newness. You learn something each week. But somehow, life gets in the way. The honeymoon ends and suddenly, you see things for what they are – ordinary.

I’m talking to you Flash Forward, V, and Better Off Ted.

Flash Forward
I think I’ve only watched 3-4 episodes. I loved the reveal of the man who was walking around the baseball stadium during the blackout. I loved how another person who didn’t see anything during the blackout actually died – foreshadowing what would happen to John Cho’s character (who also didn’t have a flash forward) And then they revealed Joseph Fiennes’ friend’s flash forward was actually fake. What he saw doesn’t actually happen and thus throws off the mythology of the show all in 3 episodes. Now as an educated TV show watcher, I’m sure they’re going to call back to this and somehow explain that perhaps this character misinterpreted the flash forward. For example, he was sleeping at that very moment and what he saw was a dream. This would be lame. And because of this, I stopped watching. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to know what happens, I just don’t want to sit through it. Know what I mean?

V
I think I’m current with this show. Again, I want to know what happens but I can’t really handle the horrible dialogue or the uber-cheesy green screen shots of people on the ship. As SFX have advanced in the past decade or so, audiences are pretty hip to good and bad effects. I’m sure many don’t notice, but step up your game SFX team. And as someone who likes to completely invested in the world a show is trying to create, too many flaws (like bad effects, stilted dialogue, and expository scenes) really take me out of it. But I suppose I do look at film/tv through a different prism.

Better Off Ted
LOVED the first season of this show. It’s back and while it continually entertains, I just don’t feel I need to watch it every week. I think I’d be content with just watching it if it happens to be on. I’ve mentioned this in the past too, but they’d definitely changed the cinematography/production design a bit this season. You now see much warmer tones and generally more color in every frame. This contrasts the cooler, slightly desaturated look of last season. I’m used to it now, but it definitely felt different when I watched the first few episodes. The feel of Better Off Ted was there, but something was a bit off.

[ADDENDUM 2/8/10]

The Office
I don’t think I’ll be hurting anyone’s feelings if I said this show’s been heading south since Pam and Jim found out they were having a baby. Michael Scott will always be Michael Scott, Dwight will be Dwight and the same goes for pretty much the rest of the supporting characters. The audience falls in love with these characters and enjoys seeing them react to the random events that seem to happen in their daily routine. But there needs to be an emotional through-line the audience can follow. They need to know that something is going to happen with these characters. This is what Pam and Jim brought to the show for the first 3 seasons. Witnessing the hijinx was fun, but audiences connected with the Pam and Jim storry.

But now that Jim is a co-manager, married and expecting a kid, what’s really left? You can tell they’re shifting the romance from Jim and Pam to another salesman-receptionist potential relationship. Andy (Ed Helms) who is quickly becoming one of my favorite characters wants Erin and I’m sure that will turn into something eventually. That’s just par for the course.

Kudos to the writing staff for giving Michael some romantic pursuits because we got to see Michael fumble through something more than just being the boss. But again, it’s Michael being Michael. Also, the Dwight-Angela-Andy love triangle was enjoyable and helped transfer the emotional core away from Jim and Pam, if only for a little while.

Dunder-Mifflin getting acquired by a printer company called Sabre is interesting, but I’m wondering why it happens mid-season versus at the beginning of the next? Maybe they’re just running out of ideas?

I’ll still watch, but I won’t cry if the DVR accidentally deletes it.

[END ADDENDUM]

So these are the shows that have fallen to the wayside. This doesn’t mean that I’m not watching anything. Modern Family continues to impress in its freshman season. Castle is a guilty pleasure that keeps my interest week to week. I suppose my man crush on Nathan Fillion and Stana Katic’s hotness help with that. But I just love how that show looks – beautifully shot. And the guiltiest pleasure of all is probably Supernatural which is a perfect example of how to NOT take yourself too seriously. The creators of the show have fun with the rules and conventions you’ve established over the past 4.5 years.

I am waiting patiently for the return of Mad Men, which I can now watch in HD since Time Warner Cable FINALLY has AMC in HD.

SCRIPT/STRUCTURE
You’ll hear it described as Dances with Wolves in space. Or maybe even Fern Gully Redux. But it’s probably closer to Dances with Wolves meets The Last Samurai in space. There’s nothing original about this story. Everything you see is familiar and for every scene, you’ll probably be able to pick out 2-3 movies with similar imagery. Which necessarily isn’t a bad thing. I read an article (amidst the flurry of Avatar-related articles) over the past 2 weeks where James Cameron mentioned – and I’m paraphrasing – that technological advances in film production (the 3D and highly advanced character animation) are more palatable when you can place it in the context of very familiar stories.

The script is structurally sound – all major events happen when they’re supposed to and Jake Sully hits and overcomes every obstacle the way he should. Again, since it’s a familiar story, it’s predictable and you know what will should happen in the next scene. It’s almost 3 hours but never really felt that way. Scenes never felt like they dragged even if you knew what was coming next.

The dialogue was probably the weakest element of the script, but I knew what I was getting into and really didn’t expect much of it. The film does explore some timely themes – like terrorism, corporate greed, and environmentalism – and with a heavy hand at times.

CHARACTER
The characters are archetypal and they play the roles they’re supposed to play for this type of story. You may contend that they seemed pretty flat, but for a sci-fi/action/fantasy film, this deficiency easily overlooked when you’re caught up in the story. In a movie like this, you’re not so much concerned with how the character changes throughout the story, but how he reacts to the obstacles that present themselves in the plot.

I will commend the artists who animated the Na’vi. I was trying VERY hard to look for any flaws in the animation, especially during close-ups when you see their faces. I’m happy to say I couldn’t really find any. In the past, CGI facial animation always left something to be desired. It never seemed real enough. When one of the Na’vi was angry or sad or happy, it really looked that way. The realism in how emotions were captured and then displayed is one of the biggest reasons I was able to immerse myself in this movie.

DIRECTION
It’s clear that Cameron still understands how important storytelling is to the cinematic experience. Are you listening Michael Bay? If there’s one thing you get from James Cameron, it’s a good time. I look back at all his films and I’ve enjoyed watching every one of them – even Titanic. As much as that film is the butt of jokes these days, I remember being completely engrossed with what was on screen. It was a spectacle, and so is Avatar. Cameron just knows how to “wow” the audience – despite the cheesy Simba and Nala-esque love scene, stilted dialogue, AND corny theme song.

STYLE
There’s really not much I can say about the actual cinematic elements of the film. Perhaps I was too engrossed with the storytelling that I missed some things. I do know that the film employed the Firefly/BSG-esque CGI verite shots – in which a “camera” would zoom in or out on a subject. I guess this makes sense since that style is kind of hip these days. It didn’t seem distracting in any way, but then again, my eye is already used to that technique.

The 3D was cool, but a few weeks removed from my viewing, I wouldn’t say it’s “game-changing.” It was cool seeing the imagery pop out from the screen a little bit, but it never felt like it was a gimmick – like having various objects fly at your face or whatever. After a while, you forgot the movie was 3D and it just looked normal.

THOUGHTS/GRIPES
Avatar won’t change the way you see the world, but it’s definitely a spectacle to experience. As someone who probably looks at movies a bit TOO critically sometimes, it’s refreshing get fully immersed in a story. When people talk about movies that take you away to that special place and if you stare to long, you’d probably break down and cry to another world for a few hours, this is it. The criticisms I have don’t prevent me from recommending it. But I’m sure with all the publicity for this film, your mind is already made up.

I do wonder how well the film would hold up in multiple viewings though. I’ve always loved the films that offer a little more during the second viewing – Fight Club, Memento, and Brick come to mind. Will the script’s flaws be more prevalent the second time around? What would I think of it after a 2D viewing, or even on Blu-ray? Doesn’t matter. James Cameron has my money and I’m happy it was money well spent.