The Lord of the Rings Ten Year Anniversery (2001-2003)

Ten years folks.

I remember when "The Fellowship of the Ring" came out in December, 2001. What I remember is how mad I was that my mom and sister went off to see it, leaving me at home because it was “too scary”. When "The Two Towers" came out in December, 2002, my dad took me and my sister to see it. I was so excited that I was allowed to go. I even went in costume—I was dressed up like Frodo. One woman at the theater got a huge kick out of that. When "The Return of the King" came out in December, 2003, I remember seeing it in the theater three times, being both bored and enthralled by it simultaneously.

They were unlike any fantasy films ever made before, and ever will be again most likely. Even today, in a world where "The Chronicles of Narnia" and "Percy Jackson" are making the rounds on the silver screen, Peter Jackson’s "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy definitely stands out as some of the most domineering works of high fantasy shown in film.

50% of this is due to the source material. J.R.R. Tolkien’s epic "Lord of the Rings" trilogy is definitely one of the most distinguished pieces of writing in English literature, and in my opinion one of the best. When the movies came out, I had had no previous exposure to the stories. I remember asking myself, how is it that a fantasy story about a magic ring that can destroy an entire world is getting such positive press? I didn’t understand it, and was still sore my parents wouldn’t let me see "Fellowship". When I saw it however, all that doubt evaporated.

"The Lord of the Rings" deals with many classic themes: greed, fear, bravery, and redemption being only some of them. At times, these themes are more effective in fantasy than non-fantasy. In this story we have a magic ring, which was made for purely cruel purposes. The ring itself has the power to manipulate “good people” and force them into doing what its creator created it to inspire people to do. The people who own it become obsessed with it, are killed for it, or succumb to its evil till they are completely corrupted by it. Yet there remains a group of selected people who fight against the power of the ring. These people are our main protagonists.

The hobbit Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) accepts the quest of destroying the ring of power, to prevent it from being used by the truly evil Lord Salrond to conquer Middle Earth. To accomplish this, he must cross thousands of miles of terrain and enter the land of Morder, a land where everyone is an evil stereotype with no redeeming qualities. When in Morder, Frodo must throw the ring into the volcano where it had been forged—the fiery hell-like Mount Doom.

Along the way, this good natured, piece loving hobbit is tested by the evils of the ring, and nearly succumbs to them himself. He has a host of friends who help him avoid its evil. Amongst his friends are Gandalf the Wizard (Ian McKellan), Legolas the elf (Orlando Bloom), Gimli the dwarf (John Rhys-Davies), three hobbits, Merry (Dominic Magonahan), Pippin (Billy Boyd), and Sam (Sean Astin), and two men, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), and Boromir (Sean Bean). They all go with Frodo on the quest to Mordor, but they are separated and go on alternate paths. Their interconnected storylines are all followed through the three films, as they work towards one common goal—the defeat of Mordor, and the destruction of the ring.

Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins

After their fellowship breaks apart, Frodo and Sam go to Mordor alone. Along the way, they encounter Gollum (Andy Serkis), a creature that had been twisted into insanity by the ring’s evil. Gollum followed the company from the start of their quest, and continued to follow Frodo and Sam. They catch him, and sense Gollum knows the way to Mordor, Frodo agrees to have Gollum lead them to the entrance of Mordor, in exchange for Gollum’s life. Gollum’s still blinded by his desire for the ring, and the slightest feelings of loyalty to Frodo.

Is Gollum ultimately a good guy or a bad guy? I’d lean towards the latter. Gandalf predicted that Gollum would have some part, good or evil, to play in this incredible drama before all was over. Ironically it is Gollum who, quite unintentionally and singlehandedly settles the conflict of the entire story.

With such a stellar cast, it’s tough to tell who steals the show. The actors are all very good in their roles. Elijah Wood’s Frodo starts out like a good natured boy, and then slowly becomes glummer and glummer as the weight of his quest bears down on him. Sam is the dedicated friend who will stand by you no matter what, a performance which felt genuine. Merry and Pippin are very well played, and alternate between comic relief and utter seriousness.

Viggo Mortensen’s Aragorn is a little like a western gunslinger. He’s mysterious, incredibly well skilled at fighting, and very loyal to his cause. He particularly reminded me of Clint Eastwood’s William Munny from "Unforgiven" (1992). Both men are physically skilled fighters, intensely devoted to their women, and both have an enigmatic layer to their character because they are hiding from their pasts. William Munny is a retired outlaw, bandit and murderer. Aragorn is the heir to the throne of Gondor, the kingdom of men. In the end, both confront their pasts to solve their problems, and ultimately make things better. Aragorn becomes a much loved monarch, and while Munny isn’t exactly covered with glory, he is removed and he is shown for who he is.

"The Lord of the Rings" books and the films are vastly different. Both bits of art were approached and set up in such a way that made them work and sucked us in, despite how weird all this sounded. In the books it was Tolkien’s extensive character development, exciting adventures and battles, and choice of language to create his world in our minds. The movies take Tolkien’s romantic, almost "Ivanhoe"-like prose and turned them into the more modern action picture.

The Battle of Minas Tirith as depicted in "The Return of the King" (2003)

Each film is a thrill ride filled with magic, scary looking creatures, and some of the greatest action and battles in cinema. Some of the creatures are quite frightening, such as the Ballrog in "The Fellowship of the Ring", a giant monster covered in flame, the apparitions in the Dead Marshes in "The Two Towers", and Shelob, the enormous spider in "The Return of the King".

I hadn’t read the books when I saw the movies, so I didn’t have the complaint that they weren’t faithful to the books. Later on, I read the books. It’s true that much had been changed. There aren’t as many songs or poems. The characters talk differently. Entire chapters were left out, such as "The House of Tom Bombadil" in "The Fellowship of the Ring", or "The Houses of Healing" in "The Return of the King" (which did actually make its way into the extended version.) My point is that the material was altered for the screen. To me, they are great films and great books. I don’t necessarily prefer one to the other. I believe that they are both masterful works in their respective Medias, and see no real reason to nitpick. I’ll leave that to the die-hard fans of the books.

When Peter Jackson read Tolkein’s "Lord of the Rings", he was very impressed with them. He said that it would undoubtedly be adapted for the screen some day, but little did he know by whom. Jackson did a fantastic job driving the huge vehicle of making these films. His cast and crewmembers have granted him nothing but glowing praise, citing his passion for the source material as the key to the films’ successes.

Peter Jackson during the filming of "The Return of the King" (2003)

Jackson had working on the pre-production of the films since 1992. Filming was from October, 1999 to December 2000, with additional filming till 2004. The trilogy will probably be the crowning achievement of Jackson’s career, which may or may not be alright with him. Now Peter Jackson is hard at work on making the two part film version of "The Hobbit". I’ve been looking forward to that ever since the release of "The Return of the King". I’ve been following the production notes off and on for around four or five years, and as I understand it, filming is to be completed by early 2012.

"The Lord of the Rings" is a great story, both the books and the movies. I hope that seeing the films will encourage people to read the books, and vice versa. As filmmaking continues to advance, I hope that these films are remembered for how much of a splash they made when they came out. For how they are simultaneously visual and philosophical wonders. And for how, like "Star Wars" had before them, "The Lord of the Rings" has taken highly stylized CGI high fantasy filmmaking to a new level. If these films can’t do that, and I can’t see how they can’t, I hope that it will at least keep Tolkien’s stories alive if people somehow become turned off to reading books.

Production info taken from IMDB.com

Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010)

World Famous Street Artist Banksy directed this film, and as far as I know is still at large.

Star Rating: ****
Banksy’s documentary film "Exit Through the Gift Shop" is a fine documentary, very intriguing, and a good experience. If you’re an artist, even if you aren’t a street artist, it should appeal enormously to your artistic side.

Street art—a form of graffiti where artists create artwork on street signs, or posters, or if artists make art and hang it on bridges or walls of buildings. Due to internet exposure, many pieces of street art have been seen by a much wider audience. "Exit Through the Gift Shop" says that street art is possibly the most counter-cultural movement since punk.

Some of the street art is quite impressive. For example, beneath a bench one street artist painted the bench’s shadow on the sidewalk. The shadow is obviously fake, but nonetheless impressive. Throughout the film, we are introduced to some truly passionate artists. I felt myself drinking in their artistic passion and creative freedom, and thinking what a pity it is that all this talent is going into something illegal. It was very amusing how Banksy belittled the illegality of his profession by describing street art as “being in sort of a legal gray area.”

"Exit Through the Gift Shop" (2010) was directed by Banksy, an English graffiti artist. As Banksy put it, the film was about Thierry Guetta, who tried to make a documentary about Banksy. In the end, any film that being made winded up being about Thierry. In a title card at during the end credits, it said that Banksy would never again help anyone make a documentary about street art.

Thierry Guetta is a French immigrant living in Los Angeles, who has a knack for filming. Every day, Thierry carries a camera around with him wherever he goes and films almost everything he sees. While on vacation in France, Thierry visits his cousin Space Invader, who is a world famous street artist.

Invader’s apartment is decorated with his artwork—paintings of Jolly Rodgers and of a movie poster of The Shining. Thierry got to know a group of Invader’s friends, and he would follow them around filming them as they made their street art. He claims he’s making a documentary about street artists, but he is really working on no such project. He’s just filming.

Thierry has a few levels to his characters that I can see. The first is his passion for his work. He’s obviously got an appreciation for street art, and he’s definitely got a passion for filming, and then for street art itself. Thierry films everything because of his fear of life passing by him without his being able to capture it, a complex that originated with the unexpected death of his mother when he was a child. Throughout his career, Thierry walks around filming street artists at work, many of whom say they don’t want to be filmed. Thierry is so determined to document everything he can about street art, and he finds a way to film the reluctant artists anyways.

This is another level of Thierry’s character. To get to the passion, you have to pass an exterior layer of immense disrespect. Thierry is filming people against their will, people who are breaking the law no less. Thierry is always filming people who are breaking the law, since street art is basically vandalism, which is definitely illegal. Street artist Shepard Fairey described Thierry, saying. He said: “I don’t whether it’s just that he’s passionate, or whether it’s that he’s passionate and he’s crazy, but I respect passion.”

Thierry and street artist Banksy become close friends. Banksy puts on an art show comprised of street art called Barely Legal, which to his surprise is a massive success. Banksy encourages Thierry to complete his documentary on street art. This is the documentary that Thierry isn’t making, but Thierry goes through all the footage of street art he’s captured over the years and edits it all down to a 90 minute film called Life "Remote Control". Banksy declares that the film is unwatchable, and the result of someone who isn’t necessarily a filmmaker, but someone with mental problems who just happens to have a camera. This film is an unwatchable assemblage of random footage of street artists shot over the years that went on for an hour and a half.

Banksy recognized the value in the footage itself though, and realizes he could re-edit it into a film about himself. He wanted Thierry out of the way in order to do it, and suggested that Thierry put on an art show of his own to keep him occupied. Banksy didn’t seem to grasp how seriously Thierry took everything that came out of his mouth. Thierry began making his own street art and created his own alter-ego: Mr. Brainwash. He opened a big studio, and cranked out artwork after artwork and set up his own art show called "Life is Beautiful". Despite the poor organization of the show, "Life is Beautiful" was a huge success. Thierry’s artwork sold like hot cakes, and Thierry went from oddball filmmaker to Mr. Brainwash the street artist over night. After Thierry Guetta became Mr. Brainwash, none of the other street artists would have touched him with a fifty foot pole.

It’s intriguing to watch the high level of competition between these artists, who went from liking Thierry, to doubting him, to completely resenting him. Banksy said all Thierry did as “Mr. Brainwash” was take iconic images and make them meaningless. The resentment is understandable, though. Artists like Banksy and Fairey worked hard at what they do and became masters of their craft overtime. And then here comes Thierry, with whom they had their foibles with from the beginning, nearly besting without really even trying. On the other hand, it’s not fair to assume all Thierry did was steal ideas. The passion was obviously there, so why shouldn’t Thierry make his own art?

Some of the most entertaining parts of "Exit Through the Gift Shop" are in Banksy’s commentary. Much of it is laced with very dry humor, and is ironically humorous. In describing his reaction to "Life Remote Control", he said: “I told him I hadn't seen anything like it, and I wasn't lying about that. I was faced with that terrible thing when someone shows you their work, and everything about it is shit, so you don’t really know where to start.” And later, when describing his feelings about Mr. Brainwash’s success, Banksy said: “I always used to encourage everyone I met to make art; I used to think everyone should do it. I don’t really do that so much anymore.” The humors not so much in what he’s saying, as in how he’s saying it.

Still, for all his resentment of Thierry, or Mr. Brainwash, Banksy still made a movie about him. There have been a few speculations that film is a hoax. The one thing I wonder about is how Thierry agreed to sit for a film where he is ultimately depicted as a fool. Or was the footage perhaps taken without his consent and edited into the final film, as Thierry had so often done?

I don’t have enough data to make an informed opinion on the film’s authenticity. I will say that whether it’s really or not, "Exit Through the Gift Shop" is a wildly entertaining and thought provoking film about art and the world it is born into.

During the opening credits of Exit "Through the Gift Shop", there are shots of multiple artists making street art, shaking up paint cans and mixing paint while Richard Hawley’s "Tonight the Streets Are Ours plays". The song talks about letting yourself go and letting nobody and nothing bind you. These are the feelings that art should evoke in any artist. The marriage of this song with these images not only sets the stage for the story of street art, and romanticizes breaking the law, but it also appeals enormously to my artistic side. This whole film is about how art is for everybody, even though it may shine through some more than others.

I’m not saying for one minute that the streets are actually at our disposal, but think of the opening scene as a metaphor and look at it that way. To everybody, to all artists everywhere—the streets are yours.

Big Fish (2003)

Ewan McGregor as Edward Bloom in "Big Fish"

Star Rating: ***½
You can look at Tim Burton’s "Big Fish" a number of ways. You can look at it as a fairytale, purely fantasy and made simply for entertainment. It could be a life lesson, in terms of how this man, Edward Bloom, learns to live his life to fullest extent that he could after seeing his death in a witch’s glass eye as child. Or it can be a mystery. Did all this really even happen, or is this guy making stuff up to make himself sound cool? It’s confusing, but that’s what kind of story this is. Any way you look at it, it’s a delightfully inventive and enjoyable film, and one of Burton’s best works.

The subject is the life of Edward Bloom, who was described as being a big fish in a little pond. He has a normal beginning, and then his life takes a turn for the strange. He lives in the small village of Ashton, Alabama, a town too small for the likes of Bloom. Or is it just the world that’s too small for Edward Bloom?

The story opens at the wedding ceremony of Will Bloom (Billy Crudup), Edward’s son. For years Edward (Albert Finney) has told Will how he caught an uncatchable fish the day Will was born. Will grows tired of the story over the years, in addition to the multiple other tall tales his father tells him about his life. This provokes an argument between the two, and a distance grows between father and son. As time passes, Edward grows ill. When the death struggle begins, Will and his wife Josephine (Marion Cotillard) go to visit him.

Will recalls the tales his father told him about his early life. Edward also tells Josephine some of the tales he told Will. In this way, Edward’s life is presented to the audience in flashbacks. Young Edward (Ewan McGregor) was a town favorite, winning baseball games and science fairs, saving lives, and befriending giants and witches in town. Ewan McGregor, who has very thick Scottish accent, manages to do a very convincing southern accent.

Edward also discovers a town tucked away in the woods outside of Ashton. A town that is always sunny, happy—a place where you’re always welcome, and expected. This village is the village of Specter, and Edward talks about how he eventually bought Specter to keep if from going bankrupt.

Edward meets Sandra Templeton (Alison Lohman) the girl of his dreams at a circus. He worked long and hard for the ringmaster (Danny DeVito), who gave him snippets of information about her. Finally Edward learns enough about her and goes off to her college to propose to her, only to find she’s engaged to a boy Edward disliked from his childhood. Edward courts her and the two are eventually married, despite Sandra’s previous engagement.

I don’t blame Will for not believing all those stories about witches, giants, and a town nobody’s ever heard of that his father told. It just sounds so “fishy”. Yet Edward insists it was true every moment of it. Will tries to separate the truth from the lies, and is stumped at every turn. It takes a visit to a friend of his father’s from the past, Jenny (Helena Bonham Carter), to learn that it wasn’t just made up.

Edward Bloom is a lot like many powerful characters. Like Charles Foster Kane, Edward sets out to buy a large amount of property to improve the state of living in an area. Like Forrest Gump, Edward seems to be at every singe significant event in his town’s history.

My problem with Edward is that he is portrayed as being virtually perfect, who’s better than everyone at everything. The boy Edward stole Sandra from, for instance. This boy was Don Price (David Denman), who grew up with Edward, and loathed him. The old Edward described Don Price as being one of Ashton’s biggest jerks. It seems to me that all that Don did was lose to Edward at everything—baseball games, basketball games, science fairs, etc. Now after so much time had passed, Edward comes out of nowhere and takes his fiancé. I felt a lot of sympathy for Don, even when he beats Edward to a pulp. Better yet, Don wears himself out physically thrashing Edward, and Don dies, yet again defeated by Edward.

It’s hard to suppose that with all that talent and attention, Edward didn’t become incredibly arrogant. Not specifically through things he said, but just the way he always acted so sure of himself. This is also part of the classic hero formula—becoming obsessed with their power. This was the case with Charles Foster Kane, Mozart, Jake MaLotta, etc. But this doesn’t mean Edward is bad—I think ultimately Edward is a good character. He just has his quirks, and who doesn’t anyway?

Another of "Big Fish"’s defining characteristics is the mythological creatures. There’s the witch in the swamp who’s glass eyes shows death; the giant who living on the outskirts of town; the ringmaster who’s also a werewolf. They look like ordinary people (with the possible exception of the giant). Big Fish is set in no fairytale kingdom either; it’s set in ordinary towns, except maybe for Specter. I love the way this film illuminates magic amongst everyday life. How many of my friends are witches and werewolves I wonder.

Did Edward Bloom really catch an uncatchable fish? I believe he did. Did he live an extraordinary life? Of course he did. Did he live an extraordinary life the way he portrayed it? I believe he did. As ridiculous as Edward may sound, he is deadly serious when talking about his life. The people he knew throughout his life were all real. They come to see him. Will meets them. Will represents the voice reason, and if he believes something we’d better believe it too.

The Witches (1990)

"You can never be sure if it is a witch you are looking at, or just a kind lady"

Star Rating: ***½
Popular culture has been constantly unkind to witches, portraying them as child-hating monsters that live solely for the pleasure of causing mischief. This has become the general idea, thanks to stories like "Hansel and Gretel" and "Rapunzel". I feel bad for people who practice witchcraft because of all this.

That being said, I love the iconic “evil witch”. I can’t help myself; I’m just fascinated by them and always have been. Growing up, Roald Dahl’s novel "The Witches" was one of my favorite books, which is incredibly ironic considering the premise.

The premise is that every country in the world has a secret society of child hating witches who “squelch” children. There is also a leader of all the witches in the world—the Grand High Witch, who is “the most evil woman in creation”, the film says. The movie is pretty faithful to book, though it does change things along the way. Both the film and the book have the same narrator: a 7-year-old boy, unnamed in the book and named Luke in the film, who goes to live with his grandmother (Mai Zetterling), named Helga in the film, in Norway. Helga is an expert on witches, and tells him all there is to know about them.

She tells Luke how to recognize a witch. They have to wear heavy disguises to shield the fact that are not actually human at all. They are bald and must wear wigs. They have no toes, and must wear wide-toed shoes. They wear gloves to hide their thin cat-like claws that they have rather than fingernails. They also have very purple glowing eyes. I've always liked this description. This was the first description of a witch I'd come across that wasn't the stereo typical green faced, broomstick flying witch. I'm not sure how original it actually is, but I saw it before anything it may have taken influence from.

After these morbidly fascinating stories, Luke and Helga take a vacation on the English coast, and Luke finds himself a witness to an entire convention of witches at their hotel. A convention led by none other than the Grand High Witch herself, played by Angelica Huston. The witches are masquerading as a convention called the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. How ironically delightful.
The book described the Grand High Witch being very pretty while in disguise.

Angelica Huston is a very good looking woman and a talented actress, who gives a great performance as the Grand High Witch. I remember having a large crush on her in this film when I was about ten, which is also very ironic and somewhat concerning.

The Grand High Witch is given more screen time in the movie, and is turned into a bit of a feisty and comical character. When approached by a “fellow philanthropist”, she asks, “You mean you collect stamps?” This added comedy is all very well, but it subtracts the mechanical cruelty and malevolence of Dahl’s original Grand High Witch from the film, which is part of what made Dahl’s novel so spellbinding.

Quentin Blake's illustration of the Grand High Witch in the novel by Roald Dahl

This time, the Grand High Witch has a big diabolical plan of killing off children—turning them into mice with a special formula she created herself. They try it on Luke, whom they find eavesdropping on their meeting. Luke finds winds up as a mouse along with another hotel child; the overweight food obsessed Bruno, played by Charlie Potter. The kids in a Roald Dahl story are usually mistreated, but always get their own back. What the Grand High Witch doesn’t realize, or just doesn’t care about her formula is that it only physically changes children into mice. They can still talk, think, and act like humans, and they can still… get revenge.

The mice were really puppets, manufactured by Jim Henson. As with most of Jim Henson’s puppets, I was very impressed with the puppets. This was the last film that Jim Henson oversaw. He died in May, 1990, around the time of the film’s release. (Information taken from IMDB.com)

"The Witches" was directed by Nicholas Roeg, who directed one of Britain’s finest thrillers, "Don’t Look Now" (1973). It’s good to see he’s still telling creepy stories. Actually, a Roald Dahl story, particularly one like "The Witches" is a perfect match for Roeg, who has shown us total mastery of surreal thrillers.

The adaptation of the book to the film is well done, although the film was much lighter than the book. This was managed by making the Grand High Witch a bit sillier, and including a witch who turns out to be good after all. The screenwriters also make more of a character out of the hotel manager, Mr. Stringer, played by Rowan Atkinson. He was only in two scenes in the book. In the movie, he is turned into comic relief, as he becomes paranoid as to the presence of mice in his hotel. He is also in an implied relationship with a hysterical chambermaid.

"The Witches" is a good story, though it is violent and disturbing. So are most fairy tales, but this is no fairy tale, as the novel clearly advertises. If I may say so, I do favor the book over the movie. But here my job is to report the quality of the film as a film. It is a fine film, well directed by Nicholas Roeg, and with good puppets by Jim Henson and his crew. The film is not as creepy as Dahl’s writing, but still pretty darn creepy. I would not show it to any child of mine less than eight years old. I had a lot of strange phobias as a young child. After seeing this film, I’m surprised I didn’t add glove-wearing women to the list.

The White Ribbon (2009)

Aren't you worried about, well, germs?

Star Rating: ***½
It was Brett Erlich from the Rotten Tomatoes Show who put it best. In describing Michael Haneke’s "The White Ribbon", he said, “It feels like we’re in one of those creepy old photographs where nobody is smiling.”

"The White Ribbon" is a very brooding, riveting social commentary of a small German village right before World War I. To add to the movie’s grim atmosphere, the film’s color was converted to black and white. With the black and white picture, Haneke’s brilliant visual storytelling, and Christian Berger’s cinematography, I felt like I was watching an Ingmar Bergman picture, or one of the Universal Horror films.

Haneke’s direction combines the darkness of the photography with the hopelessness of the audience. In one scene, a small child wanders through a darkened cellar searching for his sister. He is frightened—he does not know where she is. He comes to the doorway of a lit room. His sister is only having her ears pierced by her father. He is relieved, and we are too.

Set in the fictional German village of Eichwald in summer of 1913, the very first scene of the film is the village doctor (Rainer Block) falling from his horse, after his horse trips over a wire set between two trees. The villagers encounter several more violent crimes. A farmer’s wife is killed in an accident, a barn-house is inflamed, two children are assaulted, and no one knows who is behind any of these. The village is predictably unsettled, and soon panic-stricken because of these crimes. The people of high influence in the town were growing angry and feuds were fueled. The tension is extremely tangible, and remains so till movie’s end. What could possibly happen now? The assassination in Sarajevo.

The main characters in this drama are the powerful baron (Ulrich Tukur) and baroness (Ursina Lardi) and their family, and the puritanical pastor (Burghart Klaussner) and his family. The children of the pastor (being children) often get into trouble, and are punished most severely by the pastor. He ties a white ribbon in the hair of his children, because “white is the color innocence.” When his son goes to his bed in evening, the pastor ties his son’s hands to the bedpost when he hears that his son is “touching” himself in an impure fashion.

The film is narrated by the school teacher (Christian Friedel). He serves as the tour guide, but the narrative abandons his own memories, and omnisciently gallops into the affairs of other townspeople. Every so often, the school teacher will say “the whole town heard about this”, or just cut back to his own point of view.

The atmosphere of mystery is almost surpassed by the atmosphere of corruption. On the surface, the premise is that this peaceful village is being torn apart by the scared peoples’ responses to these unexplained crimes. On closer inspection, the village wasn’t really so good before these sinister occurrences. The baron is feared by most, including his own family, because of his malicious, arrogant character. The pastor is strict and unfair to his children, and delivers long speeches about how corrupt they all are. The doctor sexually abuses his daughter and his maid.

When the baron, who employs many of the people in town, fires everyone to prevent harm from coming to his children, fear of poverty sets in. Fear of poverty, and also anger. The farmer’s son, whose mother died in the baron’s barn, extracts his revenge on the baron by obliterating his cabbage field with a scythe. The tension in Eichwald ties in perfectly with the overall political unrest in Germany at the time, though that unrest is never mentioned. The film ends in August, 1914, when England declares war on Germany.

The thing that saved this movie from being a complete drone, no matter how well done, was the romance between the school teacher, and Eva, (Leonine Benesch), the nanny to the children of the baron. Despite all the darkness, the charming match remains in tact, even after the film’s finish.

While I was watching "The White Ribbon", I was reminded also of M. Night Shyamalan’s "The Village", which also takes place in a fear-stricken town. The difference is there was nothing specifically supernatural about "The White Ribbon", at least as far as fairy tale monsters are concerned. "The Village" goes out of its way to tell us, with dialogue, that there is superstitious evil afoot. Though Haneke’s screenplay is very well written, he manages to convey the glumness of this village with just the shots of darkened rooms and lonely countryside alone.

The story is grim and angering, but engaging and thought provoking. Haneke’s direction is masterful to say the least, and Christian Berger’s cinematography is enthralling. The pacing is slow, but obviously deliberate. The film ended leaving me curious to know a little more, but ultimately satisfied with the resolution offered. I at least managed to convince myself that any other ending would have been unsatisfactory, and thus bogged down the movie.

The Black Cauldron (1985)

"Arise my messengers of death! Our time has... ARRIVED."

Star Rating: ***
"The Black Cauldron" doesn’t really feel like a Disney movie. Its animation, and with a darker story than most Disney features, gives it the feel of Ralph Bakshi’s animated "The Lord of the Rings" film. "The Black Cauldron" is a work of high fantasy, loosely based off of "The Chronicles of Prydain" series by Lloyd Alexander. It is not exactly a typical Disney fairytale, but it is certainly fantasy.

It’s also very flawed. There are numerous holes in the plot with regards to missing data. Something might happen and you find yourself saying, “Wait, that didn’t make sense…”

"The Black Cauldron", directed by Richard Rich and Ted Berman, is set in the kingdom of Prydain, and centers on the existence of a legendary black cauldron with unlimited magical ability. We have a nice prologue giving us the information we need narrated by John Huston, who also provided the voice for Gandalf in the animated versions of "The Hobbit" and "The Return of the King". The cauldron is sought out by the evil Horned King (voiced by John Hurt), who would use its powers to create an army of dead soldiers. These "deathless warriors" are unstoppable because they are a. dead, and b. alive due to a magic spell. Sending forth his invincible army, the Horned King would conquer and take over Prydain.

It couldn’t be clearer that this creature, (I’m not quite sure what he is), is intended to be a horrible enemy just by the way he is drawn. He is a skeleton beneath a thick robe with two large antler-like horns coming out of his head. The sight of this creature is rather frightening. Perhaps a little too frightening considering this movie is supposedly intended for children.

The Horned King is one of the most magnetic of the Disney villains, and admittedly one of my personal favorites. In 20 years, if the rest of the film is forgotten, I hope that "The Black Cauldron" is remembered solely for the Horned King. He’s a creepy looking goon, and actor John Hurt provides an aptly creepy voice. The Horned King ranks up there with Maleficent from "Sleeping Beauty" (1959), who gave me the worst nightmares of my life when I saw her eyes yellow malevolent eyes gleaming from the fireplace in the Princess Aurora’s bedchamber. There's even a frightening scene in "The Black Cauldron" involving the Horned King's eyes. In fact, the Horned King and Maleficent look somewhat alike in how they dress, where they live, and certainly in their malevolent intentions. It's a wonder that the two close friends or even lovers in some video game or picture book.

Hen Wen is an oracular pig who can create visions, and can show the location of the black cauldron. Therefore, if caught by the Horned King, everyone would kind of be in trouble. Hen Wen was kept hidden from the Horned King by the sorcerer Dalben. When Hen Wen senses that the Horned King is looking for her, Dalben sends her away with the pig keeper Taran. Taran is the protagonist of the story, who longs to be a warrior rather than just an assistant pig keeper. When Hen Wen is put in his charge, Taran is overcome with excitement to rush off and be a hero. He promises he won’t let Dalben down. As Taran fantasizes about being a renowned hero, Hen Wen wonders off, and is captured by the Horned King’s agents almost immediately. Oops.

Taran attempts to recover Hen Wen, and gets thrown into the Horned King’s dungeon. While imprisoned meets Eilonwy, who claims she’s a princess but is called a scullery maid by the Horned King in a later scene, so I’m not sure what she really is. This is another example of the flawed storytelling. Taran and Eilonwy go exploring the dungeons, and meet the minstrel Fflewddur Flam, who is also a prisoner of the Horned King. Together they escape from the Horned King’s castle, as they are pursued by huntsmen and ferocious dogs. Along the way, they meet a little Muppet like creature called Gurgi, who’s just kind of a troublemaker on the look out for food. He joins the team, and they all go gallivanting off to find the black cauldron.

"The Black Cauldron" is an enjoyable film, if not a particularly well made one. The Horned King stole the movie, but the cuteness of the pig, and the fantastical and adventurous aspects of the story also make it an interesting experience. It’s a good story, it just felt rushed. If the plot were laid out more carefully it probably would have been better.

The characters are fun, too. They aren’t as developed as they might be though. Knowing who Eilonwy is, and whether she is a princess or a scullery maid would have been nice. Knowing a bit more about Taran’s background also might have been nice, because we never know how he wound up an assistant pig keeper at Dalben’s house.
The final battle is also worth mentioning, though not in detail so as to avoid spoilers. This again is mostly attributed to the presence of the Horned King, and how frightening he can look. After the fight all is resolved, but the resolution also feels rushed and doesn’t really make much sense because there is so much data missing.

I’m sure the books made a lot more sense. "The Black Cauldron" is based on two of Alexander’s "Chronicles of Prydain" series: "The Book of Three" and "The Black Cauldron". When I heard this, it made sense why the plot didn’t seem well balanced. When two stories, especially in the high fantasy genre, are blended together at high speed in order to be condensed into an 80 minute movie, the result is usually less than smooth. Another example of this is the motion picture "The Last Airbender", based on the popular TV series which is incidentally also a work of high fantasy.

"The Black Cauldron" isn’t a great Disney film, but it has such a memorable villain, and enough other things going for it, that it would be a shame if it was forgotten as time goes by. It’s not perfect, but it is entertaining. At least the movie has that in its favor.

Elephant (2003)

Therapy just wouldn't cut it...

Star Rating: **
Gus Van Sant’s "Elephant" is much like the film’s own background shots—blurry, unfocused and confusing. This film has nothing nice to say and takes far too long to say it. At the end of the movie, I asked myself what really happened here. I came up with one answer: nothing I wanted to see.

The lack of anything happening in the first half of the film strongly implies that something will happen in the second. But when it does, you wish the movie would go back to being boring and safe. You can’t have nightmares from something that’s boring and safe.

The story is loosely based on the notorious 1999 Columbine High School Massacre. Fine. If the goal of this movie is to be completely horrible and rig us with bullet after bullet of how shitty life really is, it accomplishes this within moments.

"Elephant" is told in a nonlinear order, using various techniques including faded backgrounds and scenes shot from different angels to imply that we’re seeing the same scene but from someone else’s perspective. The big picture of the movie is that two teenaged boys go on a massive shooting spree at a fictional high school in Portland, Oregon. The problem here is that the actual shootings take place in the last twenty minutes of the movie. The first hour is just scene after scene after scene of high school kid scenarios that just takes us off the track of what this movie is really about because we think the story will be about these kids and their problems.

We have a). the boy who has trouble connecting with his father. B). The chatty school girly girl group. C). The couple of cutesy lovers. D). A dude who walks around and takes pictures of stuff. E). a girl who gets picked on for wearing the wrong clothes to gym and has a job she probably hates. If I’m boring you with seemingly superfluous character descriptions then I’m effectively describing the structure of this film.

This movie really emphasizes that the shooting takes place on a normal school day. It accomplishes this very effectively, by showing us all of those everyday school scenes. It made the outcome even more tragic. I liked the characters and their situations. Those girls made me laugh a little. I was intrigued by that artsy photographer. My heart went out to the girl who was getting picked on for wearing the wrong clothes to gym. All these characters we meet that we begin to form attachments to really have no purpose accept to get killed at the end. And the depressing, mind eating, sob provoking ending is the best part. And when I say best I mean—

I’m not denying Gus Van Sant’s talent, he can tell a good story. But this project was so nasty to start with and all he really accomplishes is making it look worse. I have to wonder, was that really his plan? How can you take a subject as gruesome as kids murdering each other and adults too, and make it entertaining? It doesn’t work here at all. It’s almost shameless what Van Sant puts on screen here.

The film does delve into the lives of the killers themselves. At first, it’s rather interesting. They’re two boys who get teased a lot. Before they go around shooting everyone, they are making out in the shower. Then in the last five minutes of the film, one guns the other down. This kills the idea of a classical romance between the killers, ala "Bonnie & Clyde", and instead makes… no sense, poetic or otherwise.

"Elephant" won the Palme d’Or (Prize for Best Picture) at the Cannes Film Festival in 2003. The nice thing about the Cannes Film Festival is that it focuses on the smaller, less well known indie films from around the world. Cannes gives films like these a chance to shine and maybe become classics. After all, some of the best films of all time started out small. Some of the great classics of today, i.e. "Taxi Driver", "Apocalypse Now" and "Pulp Fiction" were all Palme d’Or winners. However, every so often there is a serious miscarriage of justice. The fact that two teenaged guys get away with a massive killing spree and that someone won a prize for showing it on screen would be some of them.