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.

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.

It occurred to me that it’s been a while since I have seen a movie in theaters. I check the listings of my favorite theater – The Landmark on Westwood and Pico and realized that I wanted to see every film they’re showing…except for maybe Precious thanks to my coworker Brad’s candid thoughts.

So let’s get into it. Jason Reitman’s third film has been getting some award season buzz for his latest, Up in the Air. (imdb synopsis)

I WILL be talking about the ending of the film you might want to skip this entry and come back once you’ve seen it.

[ SPOILER ALERT ]

SCRIPT/STRUCTURE
This will win over critics and audiences alike because it’s one of those movies that ties everything up into a nice little package. Or if you wanna be a jerk about it – predictable. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The setups had satisfying payoffs, even though at times you knew that something was coming. The film is paced nicely and with the exception of one small section during the denoument resolution portion of the story, every scene did what it was supposed to. It was efficient in that none of the scenes lagged.

The married couple cutout photos from all over the country was an especially great device. It was introduced as a quirky and harmless wedding gag, but paid off both physically and emotionally. When Ryan sees the map of the United States filled with pictures of his sister (whose character name I forgot) and Jim, he probably realizes he’s been everywhere, but never really with anyone. Ryan also decides to use his miles to buy them tickets to travel around the world.

CHARACTER
Predictable is fine so long as you care about the characters. There were good ones here. The whole veteran-paired-with-a-rookie dynamic isn’t anything new, but works well to inform who these characters are. The teacher teaches the job, the student learns the job. Throughout the journey, the teacher also learns something from the student. Ryan Bingham and Natalie Kendrick are clearly on opposites poles, but the evolution of their relationship progressed logically and realistically.

A good character always has good supporting characters to help/hamper him from achieving his physical and emotional goals. They also inform some of the contrasting, yet equally valid lifestyle choices that Ryan could have. Ryan’s love interest, Alex, his mentee, Natalie, sisters and brother-in-law all lent a hand in helping Ryan make choices throughout the film.

I have a hard time imagining another actor play Ryan Bingham. There’s a sincerity and charm in George Clooney’s performance that really gets the audience to latch on and go for the 2 hour ride. Believe it or not, Ryan does have an external goal in this movie – to achieve 10 million frequent flyer miles. But I forgot about that goal because I started to care about whether or not Ryan would change his mind about his lifestyle. And by the time he achieves his external goal, you really don’t care. And guess what, neither does Ryan. Credit Jason Reitman for recognizing the importance of character growth.

DIRECTION
Jason Reitman, like Sofia Coppola, comes from film royalty so perhaps I hold high expectations. I’ve enjoyed his first two offerings (Thank You for Smoking and Juno) and there’s a part of me that kind of wants him to fail. The film walks a fine line between heartfelt and cheesy. I think Reitman knows how to walk that fine line. I’m convinced that with a lesser director (or lesser actors) the film could’ve gone into uber-cheesy. The ending isn’t a typical Hollywood ending – where the protagonist gets what the audience thinks he wants – but it’s also satisfying because the character has changed.

I’ve sprinkled some other thoughts about his direction in some of the categories below.

STYLE
The movie was classically shot (tripod and dolly shots) with the exception of one or two Aronofsky/Ritchie-type montages sprinkled in. The one that comes to mind was when they showed Ryan Bingham’s routine – airport check-in, security check-point, renting the rental car, and hotel check-in – which was a great technique to quickly get the point across.

There was a sequence later in the film that looked different from the rest. As I watched the scene, I remember being offput a bit – like it stuck out. After marinating for a while, I can now appreciate the creative choice. When Jim Miller (Danny McBride) warms up his cold feet and follows through with the marriage to Ryan’s sister, the cinematography changed. The movie up to that point was was mostly static and slow dolly shots, but converted to a more verite, no…documentary…no, camcorder style of shooting for the wedding sequence. The goal was to create the feeling that you were watching home video footage of an important moment in your life – one you would share with family, which contrasts Ryan’s entire worldview.

It works from a thematic standpoint and give Jason Reitman credit for making a cinematic choice like this. This is what directing is.

THOUGHTS/GRIPES
I enjoyed the film and think it’s rated just about right. Ever since Lost in Translation, I’ve always been weary about films being overhyped and eventually underwhelming when I finally watch it. Would I think it would be as good if I watch this AFTER it wins a Golden Globe? Who knows.

I did think one sequence was a bit heavy-handed. It incorporated the use of interview-like footage of employees who have been terminated. These interviews were intercut with either Ryan or Natalie laying people off. Towards the end of the film, Reitman intercut some footage in which the subjects express how grateful they were to have a husband/wife/family to help them cope with the pain and  uncertainty of unemployment. By this time in the film, the narrative already gets its point across. I didn’t need them to shove it down my throat. Heartfelt and cheesy = po-TAY-to and po-TAH-to. I could probably go either way depending on how cynical I’m feeling at that moment.

Anyhow, great film to start awards season. Next up: Avatar in IMAX 3D! (although it’s unclear if it will get any awards buzz outside of Outstanding Visual Effects)

I apologize for the delay in getting this up, but Tess got me a PS3 for my birthday/Christmas so I’ve been putting in some quality time there. For anyone who’s played Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, you know that it’s a surprise anything gets done at all.

10. L.A. Confidential
1997 marked the first year I made a concerted effort to watch every film nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. You had best believe I was angered that Titanic (the clear favorite) beat out the best film of the bunch. This was a brilliantly-written procedural full of rich characters and outstanding performances from a sick cast. It’s a crying shame that Russell Crowe was not nominated for his performance of Officer Bud White. Most people hate the guy, but I’ll always put my money on him for a good performance after I watched this movie.

9. Jaws
So many iconic scenes from this film: the “you’re gonna need a bigger boat” scene, the scars scene, and of course the awesome climax, but the one that’s been ingrained in my memory since childhood is this one. I’ve been captivated and terrified of sharks since. This is probably why I haven’t tried surfing yet. I figure that a movie that incited my galeophobia should probably rank up pretty high.

8. The Shawshank Redemption
It’s impossible to NOT watch this movie if you happen to see this on the cable guide. There’s really nothing to hate about a wrongly-accused weakling who finds the strength to overcome dire circumstances. Also, this was the first of many good films narrated by Morgan Freeman.

7. The Usual Suspects
I remember being told to pay close attention when watching this movie. And when you’re in high school and watching it with a bunch of your friends, “close attention” isn’t really on the radar. Nevertheless, I was instantly pulled in to this well-crafted and intricately woven story about small-time crooks.

(I should probably count the entire trilogy as one, but I’m just reporting what Flickchart shows)
6. LOTR: The Two Towers
Lots of cool action sequences, but clearly the middle movie. The Helms Deep (skip to 2:45) part was all kinds of badass, too.

5. LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring
I remember watching this in the theaters with my good friend Phil. I did not say a single word for the ENTIRE movie. I was THAT awestruck by what I just saw. I loved that I was transported into a different world and I was eager to see the following chapters as soon as the credits crawled up the screen.

4. LOTR: The Return of the King
Yeah, maybe it had like 5 different endings, but this was the epic of epics. I’m not mad at that. That one battle at Minas Tirith where the ghost army comes is worth the price of admission alone.

3. City of God
Captivating story, edgy visual style, and one of the best movies of the 00’s. Latin filmmakers were on the come up in the early 00’s with Innaritu’s Amores Perros and Y Tu Mama Tambien’s Cuaron, but this film by Fernando Meirelles was my favorite of the pack. Who wouldn’t want to see a coming of age story set in the violent slums of Rio?

2. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
I’ll always be a sucker for a good love story, but this one has it all. It’s the perfect blend of plot, character, theme and visual style. I can’t imagine a better pairing of screenwriter and director, Charlie Kaufman and Michel Gondry. I was asked recently what American movie best exemplified inventiveness in narrative filmmaking. I dare you to pick a film that betters this one.

(You could make an argument for Timecode, but that felt more like an experiment rather than an actual narrative film)

1. Braveheart
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! Man, where to begin? Aside from Mel Gibson being kind of a joke these days, and the insane historical inaccuracy, this is flat-out fine cinema. Ok, William Wallace does come back to Scotland looking waaaaaay older than his wife-to-be, Murron, but I can overlook that. All he wanted to do was come back and raise crops – and a family, God-willing but they done set him off after murdering his wife. What’s great that it isn’t JUST a revenge story. William Wallace gets revenge on his wife’s murderer at the end of the first act. To this day, I still can’t choose who is more beautiful – William Wallace’s wife or the French Princess.

Every man dies, but not every man gets biblically know such beautiful women.

Movies that SHOULD be on this list and will probably be once i log back into Flickchart: (in no particular order)

Swingers, Requiem for a Dream, Dark City,  In the Mood for Love, Last Life in the Universe, The Last of the Mohicans, The Last Dragon (just kidding, I noticed the last two titles started with “last”) and Heat

I subscribe to several screenwriting blogs and every now and again, they will mention some overused movie cliches conventions that you would see that either advances the plot or informs character development. Recently, Scott from GITS mentions a “running through the streets of NYC” montage and The Bitter Scrip Reader discusses the newscasters as an expository device.

As a kid who grew up on 80’s action movies, it would be those training/preparation montages along the lines of this classic:

…or like when Arnold gears up for the big rescue of his daughter (played by Alyssa Milano) in Commando. Sorry, I couldn’t find a YouTube clip of it, but it’s various shots of Arnold sliding a big survival knife in his boot, painting his face with tiger stripes, slamming a magazine into his machine gun, and hanging some grenades on a vest he zipped up a few cuts prior. There’s usually some dramatic horns with a snare drum in the back and throw in a few snap zooms for emphasis.

Now I was watching Defiance last night and realized there’s one that’s very commonplace in action/war flicks – the explosion next to a character who becomes temporarily dazed. It usually takes a moment to come to – usually due to another character screaming his name to get his attention. This device is pretty effective because it uses sound design and post-production to get its point across.

I’m sure this has been done prior to this film, but I really took notice during the Omaha Beach landing of Saving Private Ryan. It happens at around the 4:40 mark on the video below:

This sequence is cut in such a way that the audience becomes Capt. John Miller. They see what he sees and hears (or doesn’t) what hears (or doesn’t) all in a heightened state of consciousness. The sound goes in and out and you hear that eerie high-pitched tone after your ears get pounded by high decibel levels. You see another soldier trying to get his attention, looking straight at the camera to give you Capt. Miller’s point of view. Miller comes to and the sound is now back to what you would expect to hear in the middle of a fierce gun battle.

[NOTE: I should say that I've never been nearby when an explosion goes off, so the way this event is portrayed could actually be accurate. The closest I ever came was when a pretty large firecracker named an onion went off in a big steel drum next to me during a New Year's Eve celebration in the Philippines. I was probably about 5-6 when this happened so this memory isn't vivid, but I do remember that strange hum. No slow-mo, though.]

This is all great, except it’s becoming more and more common. Several years later, you would see a similar sequence in Ridley Scott’s Blackhawk Down and just last night, I saw the same sequence in Edward Zwick’s Defiance when the refugee camp was bombed by German plans. Same explosion nearby. Same close-up of the disoriented character (in this case it was Daniel Craig). Same other character getting his attention.

In fact, I’m curious if there was a similar sequnce in The Last Samurai. I can’t remember off-hand, though.

Don’t get me wrong – these sequences do a good job of breaking that wall between the audience and the character on the screen. The audience is supposed to experience what the character experiences. Put that on the list of cliches conventions you will likely see over and over again…until someone comes up with a fresh way to do it.

Can anyone else remember other movies that incorporated a similar sequence?