Love: Alfonso Cuaron
April 17, 2008
He’s the one on the left. He’s also my favorite Director… right now at least.
Scorecard: 3 Masterpieces (A Little Princess, Y Tu Mama Tambien, Children of Men) . 1 fantastic entry in the fantasty blockbuster arena (Harry Potter and Prisoner of Azkaban). 1 underrated Dickens adaptation (Great Expectations). 1 debut Mexican film I haven’t seen, but is in my Netflix queue (Solo con tu Pareja).
Alfonso Cuaron is blisteringly intelligent. He’s worldly (duh). He’s extremely likable. He’s also part of the only genuine film movement (The Neuvo Wave) in the last 15+ years. What’s the key to his success? Regard for subject, regard for subject, regard for subject. He takes the philosophy “there should be a meaning for everything” and drives it home. Every line, every shot, every fixture, has purpose. The complete thought: it’s the most noble form or art in my opinion. Cuaron puts it all on screen, and yet nothing is more fascinating than listening to him talk about his work or the work of others.
Which makes the fact that his films are highly regarded for their style all the more perplexing. There’s no doubt he’s a master of his stylistic choices, but there’s always a substantial reason for every one of those choices. Children of Men is renowned for it’s long tracking shots, but more amazing is the complete and total effectiveness of those shots. It’s a harrowing experience and completely immerses you in the world of those scenes. By refusing to cut, there’s no separating yourself from the experience. It makes it all oddly realistic and seems to go back to the old Godard idiom on editing: “when you cut you lie”. These shots were not just pretty stylistic choices. Look at the achingly long track shot in Joe Wright’s Atonement. Sure it was pretty and a mark of great aesthetic production design, but it was completely pointless. Worse, it was boring.
Pointless and boring. I can’t think of two better words to be the opposite of Alfonso Cuaron.
Love: Paul Thomas Anderson
April 17, 2008
In the spirit of Director week at SILASIDL, I decided to reverse my dour dismissals of the Scott brothers in favor of the love train. I love Paul Thomas Anderson. It’s actually a love that’s waned a tad over the years, but no figure helped define my “I’m really interesting and deep” adolescence better than this guy.
Scorecard: 2 Divergent Masterpieces, 1 Flawed Personal Epic, 1 Strange as hell Romantic Comedy, 1 starter film that was jacked by a studio.
Sydney/Hard Eight - There’s some good stuff in here (especially Phillip Baker Hall and John C. Rielly showing what they can do under PTA’s direction), but I never saw the original version so I have no idea how good it can be. The most long standing aspect of the film (besides the studio butchering it) seems to be internet nerds getting into passive-aggressive arguments over which title is more appropriate. The pretentious PTA love crew likes Sydney cause it’s the title PAUL wanted. The snarky PTA love crew likes Hard Eight because they think the pretentious PTA love crew is being pretentious and they’re just being contrarian. I chose Hard Eight cause normal people will understand which fucking movie you’re talking about.
Punch-Drunk Love - A really likable film I appreciate for a bunch of reasons. One, it really echoes the kinds of dysfunctional relationships you see in John Cassavettes films (specifically Minnie and Muskovitz). Two, the films works tremendously well as an analysis of the popular “Adam Sandler character” and what an aggressive man-boy would be like in real life. Thus, it ends up being a neat little character piece. Three, there’s some genuinely funny moments. Four, in terms of form it’s pretty adventurous. Five, Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Six, Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s mattress man commercial on the DVD.
Magnolia - This is that flawed one I was talking about. It’s long winded, audacious, occasionally didactic, and in 1999 it was my favorite movie ever. This is where the whole adolescent thing comes in. The themes and ideas seemed so revolutionary to me at the time. Part of that was my inexperience, part of that was PTA being ahead of the curve in terms of “we’re all interconnected” stories. Which is a good thing because the twee-ness of that genre was nowhere to be found in this sobering film. In retrospect, it’s almost refreshing to see the audaciousness on display. It’s kind of a punk movie in it’s own weird way: the rains of frogs and whatnot. Even the “interconnected-ness” is more of a “we’re in this together, don’t be such a dick” kind of way and I come to appreciate the frank beauty in that. Also, some people dismissed it as a Short Cuts rip-off and that’s not exactly fair.
There Will Be Blood - Now a qualified masterpiece. Better than that it’s a fascinating 3 hour character examination that manages to be completely riveting. Also, it’s easily his most accomplished film in terms of a more “adult” direction. I could really write and entire paper on the film but I’ll just adjust one thing I found fascinating in terms of the films construction. [Spoiler] The entire film is actually building up for the ending time jump. Some people just saw it as “the ending” but in retrospect the entirety of the film is the examination and evidence of how a driven (but secretly decent man) can end up becoming a monster. It’s also comes at you like a batshit insane ending, filled with nervous laughter and action bursting off the screen. The more I’ve watched it, the more you see what’s really there… and it’s fantastic.
Boogie Nights - The original masterpiece. When I first saw this, I had no idea how good it was. I think this might be the most re-watchable movie I own, as I love it everytime. It’s remarkably all-encompassing: It’s deep and dark, yet light and airy. It’s straightforward yet nuanced. It’s audacious, yet grounded. It’s as close as you can get to a perfect movie and has one of the best completely cast performance I can think of. Every single person who gets a moment makes it count. Plus it’s another one of those batshit insane endings that totally work (skinny Alfred Molina!)… It’s also a quote machine.
Love: The Simpsons, Seasons 3-6
April 10, 2008
I’m not sure if there is anything, and I mean anything, better than the Simpsons Seasons 3-6. The only things that might give competition are Season 4 of The Wire and Bacon.
Given the extreme difficulty of churning out a quality television product throughout a season, it’s really an extraordinary accomplishment. I love all the seasons for different reasons. Just recently I’ve gone back and watched Season 3 which I consider the height of the show in it’s orignal form. Great storytelling, sharp lines, and an emotional core. My girlfriend, who hadn’t seen any of the episodes from this season, cried at the end of every single one. Repeat, every single episode. That’s the sign of sweet and touching series right there. Season 4 is often considered the greatest season and I’m not so sure. It’s certainly the funniest. Jaw-droppingly funny in every style of humor imaginable. But it was definitely when the show took off in a new direction. The references became more obscure and random, the grounding reality of the series was lost a bit, and the emotional core gave way to more humor. You can credit the new writers like Conan O’Brien with that turn. After that, David Mirkin came in to be the show runner for seasons 5 and 6 and kept the quality strong, blending the relative effectiveness of the seasons before.
Seasons 7-10 were still good. Quite good in fact. “Still the best show on Television” good. But, there was a noticable drop in quality. Homer was too willing to be a jerk. Narratives were pretty much done away with. When it was good, it was at marx brothers level, but when it wasn’t perfect it just seemed disjointed.
I’m also not going to jump on the bandwagon and say The Simpsons sucks now. Far from it. It’s still a very, very good television show (especially since Al Jean and Mike Reiss came back to run it). It’s just that most people’s sense of humor has evolved with time. It’s inevitable really. The geniuses of yesteryear become tired in comparison to the “new”. Look at all the people claiming that Family Guy is better than The Simpsons. That’s ridiculous, because it just seems more fresh. Family Guy had one good season and a few decent jokes, but you can barely consider it a show. It’s just a bunch of random animation centered around tangents. The Simpsons did cutaway jokes more effectively over a decade ago then got tired of them. Meanwhile Family Guy keeps trotting them out. It’s never even come close to the quality of the “golden age” of The Simpsons.
Then again, what is?
Love: PROVIDENCE RESTAURANT
April 1, 2008
I’m borderline obsessed with high cuisine… and pretty much all cuisine too. My love of both eating and preparing the best food there is, has lead me to the extreme ends of culinary expertise (or at least as far as the relatively little money I earn does). I’ve eaten the cuisine of Joel Robuchon, and at some of the great California flagships. With that, it’s only fitting that the best food I’ve ever had in my life, is from the restaurant around the corner from house.
It’s really nothing more than coincidence. It’s a 5 star restaurant after all. Michael Cimarusti, the chef who oversaw the revitalization of The Water Grill, founded Providence with his partner and matire ‘d Donato Pato. Cimarusti brings an outright tangible passion for his food and craft. He’s one of the few Los Angeles chefs who’s actually more concerned with the highest standards of his food then whether or not he has a famous clientèle. He works brilliantly with the “petit details” and while enormously inventive and original, it’s ALWAYS about flavor first. Which makes his pairing with pastry chef Adrian Vasquez all the more wonder. Adrian is endlessly inventive, integrating savory flavors, asian, indian, and mexiacn ingredients into his a-traditional desserts. Plus, he doesn’t seem overly concerned with composition when most gourmet pastry chefs are really nothing more than sugar sculptors.
I cannot tell you just how incredibly refreshing this is in the modern culinary scene. Psuedo-inventiveness is often favored by the critics who have no idea what they’re doing. It’s amazing to me. Meanwhile, the foodies all know, Providence is the real deal.
I’ve taken several cooking classes at the restaurant and they’ve been some of the most eye-opening experiences of my (in cooking terms at least).
I love this restuarant.
http://www.providencela.com/
Love: The Iron Giant
March 28, 2008
I’m still deciding, but The Iron Giant just might be my favorite movie of all time. That’s not hyperbole. It’s a brilliant film with brilliant choices. It’s littered with with great little details and moments. It does everything right: the setting is a vibrant character. It doesn’t rely on dialogue and when it does it’s always sharp. It’s smart. It’s great for adults. It’s sometimes satirical. It’s It messes with film form yet keeps a very traditional story. Best of all it keeps a wonderful emotional core at the center of everything it does. The relationship between the Giant and Hogarth is one of my favorite on-screen relationships. The other characters are fantastic too. I will forgive every actor who voiced in this film (it’s impeccable casting by the way) for any career misteps in the future.
And the man responsible for all of this? A little guy called Brad Bird. He worked on The Simpsons before this, and then went on to do two films called The Incredibles, and Ratatouille. Not a bad resume.
Love: The Wire
March 7, 2008
Best show in the history of Television. Hands down. (or at least from everything I’ve ever seen… which is a lot) I cannot recommend to you enough that you rent/buy/watch the first season. Don’t come in during the middle of it or god forbid the series finale which airs on Sunday. It’s the most enriching experience I’ve ever had as a viewer in my life. Please. Please watch the first season of the wire and give it 4 episodes. I promise you won’t be sorry. Thank you.

Posted by mgss