I caught Ebert & Roeper one Saturday evening and listened to his review of Flags of Our Fathers. As I expected, he gave a glowing review of the film, emphasizing Eastwood’s knack for character-based storytelling. With the critical acclaim he’s received from Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby – films I enjoyed – the thought of an Eastwood-directed war flick intrigued me. The fact Paul Haggis’ name appeared in the writing credits was also a plus.

(I’ve noticed Haggis credited as a writer on many a movie poster lately. It’s usually another writer, then his name right after. In screenwriting class, I learned writers were often brought in to “doctor” scripts if the original script wasn’t up to the production company’s standards. And Haggis – being the hot writer over the last few years – appearing as the second or third writer in the Written By credits seems to suggest he’s been doing some repair work. I’m sure he’s making some decent coin.)

While I enjoyed Flags of Our Fathers, I was left wanting a bit more. More of what?

1) Character
Maybe it’s because the story focused on three characters instead of just one. Maybe there were so many aspects notion of being a “hero”. I didn’t get the sense of full, vivid characters in this movie. All three characters had qualites and traits audiences would be able to relate to, but I felt the movie only scratched the surface. I only sympathized with one character – the Native American soldier. I guess this is proof you can’t tell three full stories in 2:15.

2) Performance
You’re a pimp if you direct a movie and the actor who stars in it wins an Academy Award – let alone 2 actors. Eastwood did just that with Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby. The performances in Flags were good, but not riveting. I’m sure this probably has to do with the whole 3-characters-in-one-story thing I mentioned above. But I think it also may be because of the situation these actors faced. In Clint’s other films, his actors always performed in intimate quarters with their scene partners – real human beings. In Flags, there was a CG mountain and crowds for the actors to interact with. I guess even an “actor’s director” like Clint can’t make actors perform in front of a green screen.

3) Style
This probably isn’t fair to ask of Clint. He’s a guy that’s all about story, character and performance – and that’s clear in his movies. Like Roeper said, he doesn’t need fancy camera moves, interesting angles, and flashy editing to wow audiences. He’s old school like that. Clint excels at films with amazing characters who deal with unique goals and obstacles. With that, he can keep it old school and turn the camera on and let the actors work their magic. He’s especially money when two actors are in one room together. I didn’t feel any magic with this one. This script had lots of potential, but couldn’t raise the stakes high enough for any of the characters to make any big decisions. This isn’t to say that adding cool camera moves or interesting angles would’ve made the film better, but leaving them out exposes the subpar character and story development.

Don’t get me wrong – there were some beautiful shots and some even more beautiful lighting. I just didn’t see anything that I haven’t seen before from other war movies.

With the exception of some of the hand-held, almost Blair Witchy battle shots, I felt as if the movie was made for old people. There’s no doubt about the nostalgic air of the film – he even shows photographs of the soldiers who fought on the front lines. I’m sure that’s the audience he had in mind. I imagine only war history and film buffs (and war film buffs) would be dying to see this movie. I can’t help but compare it to Saving Private Ryan. Both films started almost the exact same way – with an old WWII soldier reminiscing of his war experiences. But there was something about Private Ryan that resonated with me a bit more. Maybe it’s because Spielberg showed me something I hadn’t seen before – a 20 minute splatfest that left audiences exhausted and that cool high-shutter speed effect. I remember first seeing that effect with Gladiator and I always wondered why everything was moving in regular speed, yet all the grains of sand and dirt appeared to be moving in slow motion. (it’s funny how the lack of motion blur – which we’re so accustomed to – can change the feel of a scene)

I wanted to love this movie, but I wish I had saved the $3 by watching a matinee instead. So the verdict – underwhelming, but I’ve seen worse.

that’s what i’ve asked myself lately. see, in the past week, i’ve seen about 5 movies that made me think twice about this whole film thing. while some of these won’t be regarded as cinematic masterpieces, all of them contain aspects that have drawn me in with Death Star tractor beam-like strength. in chronological order:

Science of Sleep – directed by Michel Gondry
arguably one of the most visionary directors making movies right now. while it lacked Kaufman’s tight writing, it surpasses Eternal’s visuals. Gondry kept it real with stop motion and various 2-D animation techniques to give the audience some eye treats. i hope the production designer got paid the most because that shotgun made of cardboard tubing was money in the bank. it’s always – for lack of a better phrase – really, really cool to see what Gondry pulls out of his bag-o-screen-tricks…or treats. (a halloween shout – how fitting)

The Departed – directed by Martin Scorsese
Chuck says he likes the HK version better. i say they’re two different movies. c’mon, Marty directs it and you think he wouldn’t make it his own? it’s been a while since i’ve heard a collective sigh in the theater – this one had a few of them. i expected the Hollywoodization so i was able to forgive most of the changes from the HK version. it met my expectations.

Lucky Number(#) Slevin(S7evin) – directed by Paul McGuigan
ok, so this one’s a bit on the jiggy side. but i’ll admit – it was a fun movie to watch. it’s kind of like an American version of Snatch – snappy dialogue, colorful characters, and a nice payoff at the end. you know, in the past few months, i’ve been making an effort to re-educate my cinema vocabulary. and watching these films from these famous directors makes you forget about what it’s like to be a viewer sometimes. as Anton the Film Student, i watch “cinema”, but as Anton the Person, i watch “movies”. this was a “movie”…and a fairly entertaining one at that. i guess the lesson here is never become such a film snob that you dismiss the trendy, mainstream stuff.

A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints – directed by Dito Montiel
maybe this hit home for me because i was in NYC when i watched it (it takes place in Astoria). i was watching the featurette for The Squid and the Whale and the director mentioned NYC is a great place to shoot stories that take place in the 80’s because it hasn’t changed much since then. all you gotta do is move all the new cars off the street. well, in one scene, the characters walked by a phone booth that had a Verizon label on it. hello…Verizon didn’t even exist back then…duh! anyway, that was about the only qualm i had with that movie. Mr. Even Stevens himself threw down with his performance of young Dito Montiel. Chazz Palminteri should get nominated for something for his role as Dito’s dad.

i want to expound a bit on the autobiographical nature of the film. lots of first-time directors get their shot because they’ve written autobiographical pieces. and to have a good autobiographical story, you have to go through shit. i worry sometimes that my ability to make a film from a script i write will be hampered because my life isn’t exciting enough. if all these guys go through these rough times growing up, it’s instant drama and tension – which often results in a pretty good indie film that will catch some buzz at Sundance or something. what happens when your life just isn’t exciting enough…or at least not yet?

some people are born visual geniuses. these are the guys that carve out careers because of their visual style. while that’s what i’d like to have some day, i don’t think i was born that way. i think i’ll be the guy who keeps studying the visual aspects of the craft until i get good enough. ultimately, it’s about the story you want to tell – the visuals are the manner in which the story is delivered to the audience. i was always taught to write about what you know. so what happens when you haven’t “lived” enough to “know” too much? keep living until you have an interesting story to tell, i guess.

The Prestige – directed by Christopher Nolan
holy shit – i LOVED this flick. after Batman Begins scored with audiences and critics, i would’ve thought Nolan would just mail it in. The Prestige seems as if it would be a much more natural progression from Memento rather than Batman Begins. (perhaps Batman Begins was the one he mailed in, no?) in Memento, Leonard battles his lack of short-term memory while audiences exercise the use of theirs. here in The Prestige, The Great Danton and The Professor – as magicians – misdirect while the audience tries to figure out where they’re being misdirected to. it’s been a while i’ve been so engaged with plot twists and reversals. i always wanted to be one step ahead of the movie. Nolan, who co-wrote with his brother Jonathan, has this knack for giving the audience a true “experience”. while some films use plot devices to make the audience feel stupid, this one challenges the audience to feel smart. the movie is a magic trick – and in the words of the immortal (unfortunately) MTV, “you think you know, but you have no idea…or do you?” (i added that last part in)

so all in all, it’s been a good week for movies. i guess i love talking about movies just as much as i love trying to make them. so go watch these already so we can have a chat about it over a pint. (that last part was supposed to be read in an English accent)

speaking of accents, what’s up with all the movies about South Africa coming out (Blood Diamond and Catch a Fire)? i think it’s because it’s the new cool accent for actors to try. i work with some people from Cape Town and it really is a cool accent – especially when spoken by the females.

so i’ve got this 20-page paper to write by mid-December. it’s for my last class at Cogs – the writing class EVERY student must take before graduating. i took it as an opportunity to develop my film vocabulary. sure, i’m on netflix and try to watch foreign and “art house” films, but i’m taking it back to the old school now. since the theme of the paper is “war”, and i knew i wanted to do something related to film, i decided that i wanted to write about how war impacted the film industry. so then i started to do some research on the “New Hollywood” or the “American New Wave” – the period during the late 60s through the late 70s where American cinema went through a rebirth. i read up on the directors of the era and their influences.

next thing i know, i have movies like Jules and Jim, 8 1/2, The 400 Blows, The Battle of Algiers, Breathless, and other movies of the French New Wave and Italian Neo-realism in my Netflix queue. normally, these were the types of films i’d fall asleep to in film history class my first quarter at De Anza (almost 10 years ago – GEEZ!) perhaps it’s because i’m older now, or maybe it’s because i’ve started to discover what kind of director i want to be…i have grown to appreciate and admre the cinematic techniques present in all these old films.

i was talking to the Prose Monkey the other week about music and how it’s recycled over and over and over again. Kids these days hear a J-Lo track and don’t realize that Flava was in our ears years ago. They hear Joe “Stutter” but the beat passed them by. But it ain’t their fault they weren’t around for the Golden Age of hip-hop (at least that’s what I call it).

just like it’s not my fault that I thought Tarantino was fresh, new and innovative. sure, i was alive when the Bull raged, but those were just ‘old movies’ to me. it wasn’t “cinema” yet. so in time, i started to see Scorsese in QT. and now thanks to Netflix, i see Truffaut and Fellini in Marty (yes, we’re on a first name basis).