The Crash of 1929

Written by: Ronald Blumer

Narrated by: Philip Bosco

The "American Experience" series is essential public television viewing. This episode, "The Crash of 1929" documents the time just before and just after the stock market crash of 1929, which devastated the economy and marked the beginning of the Great Depression.

This documentary is not narrative heavy. Rather, some prior knowledge of the historical significance of the event is helpful, because it does not drag on and on about the details of the events. Nor does it have long lists of historians explaining each and every facet of the crash.

What this documentary does, which I did not anticipate, is to tell the story from the perspective of those most affected by the stock market crash. That is, to say, those who were working on the stock market. Most of the interviews are with the children of bankers and investors whose lives took a dramatic turn on that fateful day. Typically, these are not the most sympathetic figures in history (given that it was their actions which precipitated the crash), but their voices are important in documenting the "American Experience." They were the closest to the epicenter of the economic quake that shook our nation.

So, from a philosophical perspective, it's a great documentary. From a viewing perspective, it's not a thriller. It's a pretty straight-forward interview-style documentary.

I enjoyed it, but I enjoy "American Experience" anyway. If you're of a like mind, I'd recommend it to you.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Directed by: Andrew Dominik

Written by: Andrew Dominik (screenplay), Ron Hansen (novel)

There exists a large division between art films and star-powered features. "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" manages to exist in the small area where the two can overlap. It's also amazing that the film is thoroughly entertaining despite the fact that the title gives away the outcome of the film.

Facing the end of his career, Jesse James (Pitt) takes in Robert Ford (Affleck) as part of his gang for his last few robberies, though it turns out that Ford has an unhealthy obsession with James's mythology. Later, as James's cautiousness deteriorates into paranoia, Ford is presented with an opportunity to collect a large reward to assassinate his hero.

This movie is big and grand, both in terms of its scope and in terms of its story. The movie may have bitten off more than it could chew - but most importantly, it feels that way.

Stylistically, the film is impressive. It's beautiful. The story is beautiful, the acting is beautiful, the cinematography is beautiful. It's all beautiful. But, even with all that beauty, it manages to maintain the grit and grime of the time period. It feels like the 1800s.

The performances of both Pitt and Affleck are fantastic, as has been discussed elsewhere. Pitt is especially powerful, given the limited amount of screen time he is given. He manages to evoke the overpowering presence of Jesse James, which is no easy feat.

The length of the film does become a bit of an issue. In the attempt to make a deep, full story with a trove of great characters, the story stretches on a bit. There are a few subplots and stories which, although great, could have been pared down. (But who am I to play editor, eh?)

I wanted to like this movie, but the actual experience was less than I had hoped. But on reflection, I can say that I enjoyed it more than I originally wanted to give it credit for. It's a decent western, but a much better character study.

I recommend it, if you like it. If you don't like it, don't say I didn't warn you.

Hoosiers

Directed by: David Anspaugh

Written by: Angelo Pizzo

There aren't too many great basketball movies out there (sorry, Space Jam), but "Hoosiers" is by far the best. In fact, it's easily one of the most inspirational sports movies, regardless of the sport. (As a brief aside, "Hoop Dreams" takes a close and very honorable second place.)

A former college coach (Hackman) with a violent past takes over the basketball program at a high school in small-town Indiana. Not everyone in town takes to his less-than-traditional style of coaching, but with the help of another teacher (Hershey), he manages to earn the loyalty of the best player in town. The long road to the championship isn't easy, though.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about what this movie does right, and trying to narrow it beyond "just about everything." What stands out most is just how real everything in the movie feels - especially the characters. Aside from a few moments of dialogue, nothing feels forced or contrived. It seemed like real people would make these real comments when faced with these real situations. Even the romance subplot, usually the downfall of most movies, plays out in a very natural and unforced fashion. Dennis Hopper, playing the alcoholic assistant coach, even earned an Academy Award nomination for his performance.

The movie is a bit slow at first. It takes a long time to meet the final cast of characters. But it is totally worth the wait. The slow development is an element of the style of the film, not a flaw in the pacing. The film gives us enough time to reflect on the characters and events, which is key in a film where reflection on life is such an important theme.

I won't spend time here describing how Hackman's character is an unlikely amalgam of the great John Wooden and the infamous Bobby Knight. Suffice to say that Hackman balances the virtues of Wooden's coaching with the intensity (borderline fury) of Knight's style. It makes him a rich, full character, who you find yourself rooting for even after you know about why he was dismissed from the college position.

This is a film worth seeing. I highly recommend it, especially now as the shadows of "March Madness" begin to creep in on the edges of our national consciousness.

Pearl Jam Twenty

Written and Directed by: Cameron Crowe

For twenty years, Pearl Jam has been a major force in rock music. From their rise during the early 1990s "grunge" movement to their current status as modern rock statesmen, their story has been one of triumphs and tragedies. In "Pearl Jam Twenty," Cameron Crowe attempts to weave together how the band got from here to there.

I loved this film, but much of that affection was predetermined by my relationship with the subject. My parents had The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. My sister had Depeche Mode and Metallica. I had Pearl Jam.

Although this documentary effectively summarizes the band's history, including major turning points (the battle with Ticketmaster, the Roskilde tragedy), I would not recommend it as a starting point for people. Some familiarity with the band and their music is necessary for some scenes, such as the footage of Stone Gossard and Eddie Vedder performing an incredibly rough cut of their song "Daughter." Even the title of the film is a reference for fans, but is lost on those completely unfamiliar.

"Pearl Jam Twenty" is pretty good, and as a Pearl Jam fan I highly recommend it. But, as a Pearl Jam fan, I also recommend you go out right now and buy all their records first. And then watch this movie. Rock on.

Bridesmaids

Directed by: Paul Feig

Written by: Kristin Wiig, Annie Mumolo

For a movie which came with such high acclaim from several of my friends and relatives, I was sorely disappointed with this movie.

When her best friend Lillian (Rudolph) asks her to be maid-of-honor at her wedding, Annie (Wiig) sets out to help Lillian have the wedding of her dreams. Unfortunately, Lillian's new friends is proving quite a rival for Annie, leading to multiple confrontations as the wedding approaches, putting a strain on the already-teetering relationships between all the bridesmaids. Meanwhile, as a subplot, Annie's love-life is falling apart as she's torn between two very different men.

Melissa McCarthy is outstanding in this film. At no point does she disappoint. I expect to see her at the top of many ballots during the upcoming awards season. She is the high point in this film.

There are a couple of memorable scenes, and the dress-shopping sequence is unforgettable in its grossness (which, to its credit, will be hard to top in terms of nastiness).

Generally, I was let down by this movie. When so many people tell me something is so great, I expect it to be pretty decent. Even if it's not great, I figure it'll be pretty good. I can't even give this movie that much credit.

I just did not see the point. There were too many missed opportunities. For example, the characters of Rita and Becca (McLendon-Covey and Kemper, respectively) had tons of potential, but after their humorous introductions they are basically background decorations. The love-story subplot is stereotypical and thin and really wasted a lot of time considering that it really did not fit with the rest of the movie at all.

I know I'm in the minority here, but I just can't recommend this movie. Sorry folks.

The Garden

Written and Directed by: Scott Hamilton Kennedy

There existed in downtown Los Angeles a large community farm. The food was simply grown by people for people. It began as an attempt to heal the city after the riots in 1994. For years it it existed peacefully, until one day the owner of the land, who had acquired the property under dubious circumstances, decided to kick everyone off. This documentary tells of the battle to control the farm.

Although I agreed with the sentiment of the film, it must be stated clearly that this documentary is clearly skewed to the side of the farmers. It's not clear how much effort was made to reach out to the other side of the story - and there's a real possibility that a genuine effort was made and declined - but the final product casts one side as the underdogs and the other as the millionaire, politically-connected villain. Not that this excuses the villain's behavior.

Regardless of the "sides" of the story, Kennedy does a great job of showing the personal, legal, and political struggles of the typically disenfranchised group of farmers. Just as they are literally trying to hold on to the land, they also have to work to hold on to hope and to keep their fledgling group together.

The movie definitely has a tear-jerker climax with some devastating imagery. (History spoiler: The farmers lose and the garden gets bulldozed. Seriously.) Even if the outcome is obvious from the start, it's hard not to root for the farmers along the way, which makes the ending even more upsetting.

Masterpiece? This film is not. It does show an allegorical tale of The Haves against The Have Nots and the powerful influence The Haves hold over our world.

I generally recommend this film because of the essence of the story it tells, not because it is a great piece of documentary work.

Young Frankenstein

Directed by: Mel Brooks

Written by: Mel Brooks, Gene Wilder (screen story and screen play); Mary Shelley (original novel)

"Young Frankenstein" is one of the highlights of writer-director Mel Brooks's career, showcasing his relationship with actor Gene Wilder. (This relationship, according to the man who runs my local theater's "Classic Film Wednesday" series, thrived on improvisation and off-the-cuff acting, leading to an original cut of nearly six hours!)

Dr. Frankenstein (Wilder) is a biologist who is trying to distance himself from his family's name due to an incident with a mad scientist of a distant uncle. But, when given to opportunity to explore his uncle's castle, he manages to uncover his uncle's greatest discovery - the reanimation of dead tissue. Hilarity ensues.

Although I love this movie, I will say that it has not quite held up over the years. It suffers from odd pacing and uneven levels of humor.

Luckily, Peter Boyle (credited as The Monster) and Marty Feldman (Igor) steal the show! The "Puttin' on the Ritz" sequence is still one of the best scenes in any comedy. Although Feldman's scenes are limited, his mere presence elevates the film. The Gene Hackman cameo itself is worth the price of admission!

"Young Frankenstein" may have lost some of its shine over the years, but it's influence is clear and far reaching, including allegedly inspiring Aerosmith's song "Walk This Way." (That's a schoolyard rumor, so I'm not sure if or how to cite it - just take my word for it because I heard it in eighth grade.) (And, as a philosophical aside, is it that the film has not aged well, or has the world of comedy film changed so drastically that "Young Frankenstein" no longer easily fits into the mold? Must discuss.)

If you've never seen it, you're definitely missing out. I'm very glad that I had the opportunity to see it on the big screen.

Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs: A Low Culture Manifesto

Written by: Chuck Klosterman

So, I admit, I'm a little late to the Chuck Klosterman parade - especially this, his most "famous" book (if it can be described as such). In my defense, I was in the midst of my undergraduate career when this book and its author rose in popularity. This was a point in my life in which my attempt to identify myself as "hip" included a necessary aversion to things that others offered as "hip," whether or not I would have actually enjoyed those things myself. Long story short, I'm just getting around to this now.

This book is mainly a collection of essays reflecting on and critiquing the nature of "popular culture." (And some of you are probably saying, "Aren't all of Klosterman's books like that?" My answer: Yes, they probably are. Oh well.)

Although I enjoyed the book, I do feel that all of the essays suffer from a cookie-cutter feel. Each one describes a feature of popular culture with witty observations, occasionally with a cynical venture into participation with that cultural feature to then return with more witty and cynical observations. I never felt like essays delved any deeper than a smirking know-it-all observation. Nothing seems to shake him from his tower of smug superiority. The best essayists (such as Joan Didion) are able to make the same type observations, but also reflect on how the experience has affected themselves. Klosterman never quite reaches that point, and after a while it became disappointing.

A few of the standout essays include:

1. "George Will vs. Nick Hornby" basically blasts youth soccer leagues as undercutting social development.

2. "What Happens When People Stop Being Polite" discusses the character archetypes used on reality TV shows like "The Real World."

3. "Billy Sim" discusses the nature of desire in relation to how the video game "The Sims" is played.

You get what you pay for with Klosterman - no more, no less. I enjoyed the book with the same sense of detachment which he imparted with his writing. It's enjoyable, just don't expect anything deeper than what the title implies.

Carriers

Written and Directed by: Alex Pastor, David Pastor

What if, in the future, a disease wiped out most of the population? What would you to survive? What if Hollywood produced a low-budget horror movie with that exact premise?

This movie takes place after a biological apocalypse, where we meet up with the Green brothers Danny (Pucci) and Brian (Pine), who have developed rules to help themselves and their girlfriends survive on the road to an elusive beach paradise.. The rules are constantly bent and broken, though, as they encounter other survivors, such as Frank (Meloni) and his infected daughter (Shipka). The pressure to survive weighs heavily on Brian, who slowly begins to lose his sanity and his humanity.

It's regrettable that the film took such an open-ended (though recently overused) premise and failed to take it anywhere. This movie didn't do anything that hadn't already been done by other films to more effect. The filmmakers' message was hard to pull out, and even then it was rather vague.

One scene in the movie stands out as being a cut above the rest of the movie: the scene at the "emergency hospital" set up at the abandoned high school with the doctor. That single scene managed to be unsettling, disturbing, and filled with tension without the need for graphic gore. The character's interaction with the doctor - and the terrible choice he and the group are forced to make - is fantastic, while there's also great tension with what's going on in the car outside. I can't say enough about how that one scene showed how great the rest of the film could have been.

Overall this movie had too much going on. There were too many settings left unexplored, too many characters left undeveloped, and too many stories that were left untold.

I simply can't recommend this movie. If you do watch it, simply watch it through the scene with the doctor at the high school (you'll know the part), because it's all downhill after that. (And, in my own defense, the only reason I watched the entire movie was because I was over halfway through by the time I realized how bad it was.)

Harvard Beats Yale 29-29

Directed by: Kevin Rafferty

Harvard and Yale are known for their football programs. But in 1968, both schools faced off in their rivalry game with perfect records. Although Yale's team was heavily favored to win, Harvard manages to stay within striking distance for the last few minutes.

This documentary had a lot of potential. The game itself held plenty of action and drama, with participants and spectators including Tommy Lee Jones (who appears briefly in an unremarkable interview), Al Gore, and George W. Bush (who don't).

Unfortunately the film did not do justice to the story it told. Rafferty decided to forgo the typical narration of a documentary and instead used simple interviews tied together and interspersed with footage from the game.

I wanted to enjoy this movie. But I didn't. Although the interviews and clips were interesting, it needed narration to tie everything together. Without it, everything feels forced and disjointed.

This film may be worth watching if you're an alum of either university (or are related to one). The story of the game is worth knowing, but this documentary may not be the best way of hearing about it.

The Birds

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Written by: Daphne Du Maurier (story), Evan Hunter (screenplay)

Most people are at least passingly familiar with "The Birds" and some of its more famous sequences. Few people have actually seen the film from beginning to end, and I now count myself among those lucky few.

Intrigued by the mysterious Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) after he hits on her at a bird store (really!), Melanie Daniels follows him to his home in Bodega Bay under the auspices of delivering a pair of love birds for his younger sister's birthday. Chaos ensues as the local birds begin coordinating violent attacks on the people of the town, leaving several dead and the rest to wonder if they will survive the night.

What surprised me most was how long it took for the action of the film to develop. For the first half of the film (give or take), the story is merely merely one of cat-and-mouse romance between Brenner and Daniels. Of course, this adds to the tension - knowing that at some point, somehow, the birds are going to start attacking. (Although, this raises the question - if one didn't know that the birds were going to attack, would that tension exist at all? Or is that prior knowledge essential to the film?)

The effects are cheesy. Hitchcock, although a master of suspense and horror, worked best when relying on his actors to pull off the drama. It was hard to be afraid of a bird that either didn't look real, or seemed to be spliced in from stock footage.

The climax is a masterpiece, though. Considering that almost everything that makes the scene scary is happening completely off camera, it's amazing how terrified the film made me feel. The sounds effects, and small but important visual effects, make this scene. Knowing that all the birds are outside the house trying to get in (and that they occasionally find a weakness in the home's exterior) was absolutely frightful without needing any blood and guts. (OK, so there's a little blood and guts - but nothing like a slasher film).

The other great scene in the film occurs in the local diner, when the birds begin their first major attack on the town. The way the different personalities in the diner interact with each other and react to the situation is priceless. Although the dialogue isn't the strongest, the scene feels very real - as though that what normal people would do given some kind of avian apocalypse. That scene alone makes the film worth seeing at least once.

Although I'm often a fan of the "No explanation given; no explanation needed" philosophy, I'm afraid "The Birds" relied too heavily on that concept. We have no idea why the birds are doing what they're doing, how they're communicating with each other, or, well, anything. It's basically senseless violence. (Although, as I type this, now I'm wondering if there may have been a message about senseless violence in our society sewn into the film? I will ponder further.) The lack of explanation and the slow pacing of the first half of the film are definitely the major flaws and hinder the film from really taking off (pun intended).

Although I enjoyed the movie, I wouldn't recommend it as a starting point for Hitchcock. It's not one of his strongest films, nor even emblematic of his work in general. It's worth seeing at some point because of the two scenes I mentioned, and because of it's place within the canon of American horror, but that's as much as I'll say for it here.

Unforgiven

Directed by: Clint Eastwood

Written by: David Webb Peoples

Hands down, one of the best westerns of all time. No further comment.

Moneyball

Directed by: Bennett Miller

Written by: Steven Zaillian (screenplay), Aaron Sorkin (screenplay), Stan Chervin (story), Michael Lewis (book)

Michael Lewis's book "Moneyball" shook up the traditional understanding of baseball by introducing the general population to the hard statistical analysis of the game known as "sabermetrics." The narrative focuses on the Oakland Athletics general manager Billy Beane and his attempt to build a winning team on a limited budget using sabermetrics to identify undervalued players.

The movie "Moneyball" takes the Billy Beane narrative from the book, but abandons essentially all of the history and evolution of baseball statistics. Unfortunately, this leaves "inside references" in the film that only those who have read the book will understand, leaving anyone else to scratch their head and wonder what the characters were talking about. (The most notable example are numerous references to Bill James - the father of sabermetrics - who received significant attention in the book, but is only occasionally referenced.)

This movie came with a lot of baggage, including the epic timeline it took to get produced. From when it was originally announced, directors and actors came and went on a carousel. At one point, Paul DePodesta - a major figure in the book - asked that his name be removed from the film, so the character's name was changed to Peter Brand.

Much of the buzz surrounding the film originally was about Brad Pitt's performance. I have to say he's good, but hard to tell whether Brad Pitt's acting was actually good, or whether he's just playing the same character over and over again. I'm not willing to jump on the Oscar bandwagon for this one, though it's definitely worth an honorable mention. The trade deadline scene is fantastic, though, and may be the key in getting him nominated.

What made the book great was the balance of Billy Beane's personal story and the rise of sabermetric analysis in baseball. Although the film is good, the limited scope removed much of the context. I found myself having to explain several concepts to my wife after the movie - not because she is clueless, but because the movie left them unexplained.

This movie is good, but unless you're a hardcore baseball stat geek, you may need to just roll with the punches at a few points.

Night of the Living Dead

Directed by: George Romero

Written by: George Romero, John Russo

This is it. The film that spawned a million spin-offs and imitations, and began an obsession with the undead.

When the recently deceased begin to return as cannibals, chaos ensues and people enter survival mode. The government's top scientists struggle to solve and explain the problem of the roving bands of flesh-eaters, while most people are in a fight to stay alive. The film follows one motley group of people who hole-up together in a country home and try to survive the night. Tensions rise immediately among the survivors, though, as they debate which strategy will give them the best chance to make it to dawn - barricade and wait, or make a run for it. Each person's personalities and motives are pushed to the breaking point, leading to the dramatic and surprising conclusion. (And yes, I realize that this description is vague and could even be loosely misleading, but if you've seen the movie, you know what I'm working with.)

Everyone should see this movie at some point. And when they see it, they need to see it in the original black-and-white style. Although the colorized version adds to the blood and gore, the black-and-white is thematically important. (Again, I can't say much more without ruining things).

Even without color, this movie is gritty and graphic. I refuse to see it at night, even though I've seen it several times.

In the canon of the history of film, "Night of the Living Dead" should stand as the representative of the horror genre.

Waiting for "Superman"

Directed by: Davis Guggenheim

Written by: Davis Guggenheim, Billy Kimball

Few movies arrive with more controversy than this one. In the education world, it created quite a stir both in favor of and against the charter school movement.

The film itself discusses the seeming failures of the public school system. From there, it follows the lives of several families as they try to break into the charter school system, seeking an opportunity to achieve more than they might within the typical confines of public education.

Although I appreciate the charter school movement and do see it as a viable alternative worth investigation, I dispute the black-and-white contrast that film presents. (Well, frankly, I argue with the basic premise that the American public school system is a total failure - but that's a debate for another time and place.) Not all public schools are terrible, and not all charter schools are successful. It's not possible to make such broad generalizations with any accuracy, but this film does so and presents it as fact.

My ultimate problem with this film is it's "documentary" status. Although all documentaries have an agenda, few cloud them as "fact" the way this film does.

Still, there's something to be said that it did - even through dubious means - bring public education alternatives to the forefront of the national discussion, if only briefly.

Although I recommend this film, I also ask that you view it with a skeptic's eyes and do your own research before jumping to one conclusion or another. The future of America's youth should not be unduly influenced by a single film. (Unless, of course, that film were "Star Wars.")

The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter

Carson McCullers's novel falls under the "southern gothic" genre, but in its own special way. Whereas Faulkner's prose intimidates you and beats you over the head with its brute strength, McCullers's text hums like a lullaby with a soft melody.

"The Heart Is A Lonely Hunter" is set in small-town Georgia during the great depression. It's the type of town where you know everyone else by name, and you're related to half of them by blood or marriage. Most of the story surrounds the deaf-mute John Singer and the fingerprints he leaves on the lives he touches.

This novel is beautiful and soft, but also powerful. I have a hard time describing it, but I highly recommend you experience it for yourself.