#a great example of actually witty dialogue and entertaining character dynamics

[remainseatedatalltimes]

A Trip Down the 2018 Cinema Lane

And so, with a single snap of two fingers, 2018 comes to an end.  Or, if you happen to be an intergalactic titan, so does half the Universe. At least until April 2019.  More on that a little later.

For now, let’s take a look back at the year that was.  A year where Super Heroes, Super Villains, and the Super Ambivalent reigned; board, school and video games became a spectator sport; the divide between actors and musicians became blurry(er); and synchronized swimming (amongst other aquatic themed activities) awed audiences worldwide, not once, but twice!

But whilst 2018 certainly dazzled with blockbuster spectacle and musical crescendos, as a whole, I actually feel the year was a bit, well…blah.  

I mean, there were plenty of good, bordering on great films – and very few outright travesties (although, I haven’t seen Holmes and Watson), but as I sit and write this year in review, I’m struggling to find many films that I can say I truly loved.  You know, those films that you want to watch over and over again, and shout from the rooftops about (such as last year’s Coco – seriously – if you haven’t seen this movie yet, stop reading, and get your priorities in order)!  

Now, don’t get me wrong, there were a number of films that I thoroughly enjoyed including Molly’s Game which delivered Aaron Sorkin’s regular witty banter and complex characters; the ingenious and highly original Wreck It Ralph sequel, Ralph Breaks The Internet; and the Marvel juggernauts (see what I did there) Black Panther AND Avengers: Infinity War.

But my top two films of the year couldn’t be further removed from each other if they tried.  

In second place, the absolutely stunning and “practically perfect in every way” sequel to Mary Poppins - Mary Poppins Returns.  I believe it’s an extraordinary accomplishment to deliver a sequel to a genuine film classic 54 years after the original and make it feel like a completely natural and complementary sequel.  From brief traces of the original films score stitched effortlessly (I’m sure it was not effortless at all) into the new score – itself both completely original and yet also still in the same style as its predecessor; to the seemingly carbon copy but in reality shrewdly clever and timely story-line; and of course, then there is the brilliance that is Emily Blunt: Mary Poppins Returns is that rare example of a near perfect sequel.  It doesn’t attempt to upstage its predecessor. It simply complements it.  And the result is a heart-warming, charming and oh so nostalgic trip down memory lane.

And then there’s my number one film of the year.  The slick, stylish, visually dynamic, unsettling and violent tale of a mysterious hotel nestled on the border of California and Nevada:  Bad Times at the El Royale.  I have to admit, even I was a little surprised to discover this film at the top of my list, but Drew Goddard’s dark film noir-esque tale of seven strangers and one fateful night had me transfixed for its entire 2+ hour run-time. But I shouldn’t have been surprised.  Since his early career as a writer for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Drew Goddard has always demonstrated an astute ability to cunningly weave together elements of horror, thriller, drama and comedy in a way few others can.  And Bad Times at the El Royale is no exception.  Throw in a brilliant cast, some phenomenal cinematography and a well-conceived mystery that is based more around what the audience doesn’t know yet – rather than a big audacious twist in the final act that doesn’t make sense – and you have an enormously entertaining and clever thriller that I feel will become a bit of a cult classic in years to come.  

Now as I mentioned earlier, whilst many of the other films of 2018 fell a little short of expectations and potential, the good news is, very few were outright travesties.  Still, at the lower end of my list was the uneven and somewhat boring sequel to the 2016 smash hit – Deadpool 2; the clichéd and beyond cheesy J-Lo workplace dramedy Second Act; and the visually impressive, but ultimately just uneven and peculiar, A Wrinkle In Time.  

But it was another odd combination that took out the not-so-illustrious honour of being my least favourite films of the year.  

The first, the part animation, part live action re-telling of Peter Rabbit.  Now don’t get me wrong, my reason for disliking this film may be a bit ridiculous – but here it is.  I like James Corden.  He’s a very funny, charismatic, clever comedian and host.  But in animated bunny form with almost non-stop dialogue for 90 minutes – well – let’s just say, I would have been way too happy to make rabbit stew of his oh-so-annoying take on Peter Rabbit.  

And speaking of annoying voices, then there was Tom Hardy’s hideous portrayal on my favourite Marvel villain of all time – Venom.   From Hardy’s horrible, whiny and dull portrayal of Eddie Brock, to a nonsensical – and frankly clichéd and humdrum plot, Venom was a mess of movie that turned one of Marvel’s greatest villains into a wearisome and somewhat pathetic character.  Sure, there may have been worse Super Hero movies (I’m looking at you Batman vs Superman), but in terms of under-delivering on its potential, Venom is pretty hard to beat.  

So that’s it for another year and another movie list!  Now it’s onward and upwards in 2019.  

With half the Universe sitting on the edge of their seat (and oblivion) until April’s Avengers: Endgame, the rest of us will sit in gleeful anticipation of a year where nostalgia reigns supreme.  Between the inevitable 90’s overload that will be Captain Marvel, to the Mouse House’s string of live action ‘remakes’ Dumbo, Aladdin and the unstoppable force that is set to be The Lion King, not to mention 2 X-Men films (Dark Phoenix and The New Mutants), another musical biopic – this time based around Elton John – Rocketman, and a string of sequels including Frozen 2, Star Wars: Episode IX, and Spiderman: Far From Home to name a few, needless to say, 2019 is going to be nothing short of epic.  

Is it possible to get an annual pass to a cinema?

Until next year…

[christiandoenges]

Kevin Smith, The Continuation of Style, and What it Means to be an Auteur

     In 1994, Clerks debuted at Sundance, jumpstarting the career of young filmmaker Kevin Smith. Made on a shoestring budget, this grainy, raunchy, quirky comedy made its way into the spotlight, and quickly became a household name, thrusting Smith into the Hollywood scene. In the years since his debut, Smith has made many films, on both independent and Hollywood budgets. Die-hard fans of Smith have stuck with him over the decades, even when his big-budget films are critically panned at the box office, such as his 2010 effort Cop Out. However, despite the critical acclaim or disdain Kevin Smith may receive, he has a distinctive style when creating his films. This paper sets out to explore how Kevin Smith crafts his films, on both low and high budgets. This includes how he writes his stories and characters, along with how he shoots his films, while finally answering the question ‘Can Kevin Smith be considered an auteur?’.

          Clerks debuted in the midst of the independent film boom of the 1990s. The film’s grainy, black-and-white style, matched with minimalist shots fit in perfectly with the do-it-yourself feeling that was present during this time. Clerks is not a complexly-shot film; most of its scenes are shot/counter-shot conversations between two characters, or one camera pointing at characters during dialogue. Smith has even said this himself; when asked if he is a stronger writer or director, he had this to say: “A writer. I just don’t think I have a directorial instinct. I think it all comes from writing and that’s why the films don’t have a fantastic visual style to them. In fact, there’s no visual style to them. There’s a lot of banter and a lot of talk.” (Smith).

     However, for many people, this is what made Clerks so interesting and cool. It didn’t pretend to be anything more than it was, which is representative of Smith, too, in a way. While researching Kevin Smith, I found that ever since he was a kid, he has been infatuated with comic books, and writing and drawing them. In fact, Smith writes his films similarly to the way one would write a comic book series. Many of his movies take place in what he refers to as “The Askewniverse”. This “universe” contains the characters, cities, and events that happen in most of Smith’s films, just like how a comic book universe, like the Marvel Universe, would contain all of its superheroes and worlds. This approach to writing films feels very organic and personal, with Robert Ebert describing it as a “...great invention, a natural feel for human comedy, and a knack for writing weird, sometimes brilliant, dialogue.” (Ebert) in his review when the film was initially released. When watching Clerks, and listening to the dialogue written by Smith, the viewer gets a sense that he is writing about experiences that he is very familiar with. This gives the dialogue a genuine feel to it, since Smith seems to know what he’s writing about, like he has actually experienced these situations he is putting on the screen. However, it can also feel amateur and immature after some time. This way of writing is fine for Clerks, since it was Smith’s debut, and therefore it couldn’t be compared to any other works of his, but as one continues through his catalogue of films, a pattern quickly emerges when looking at Kevin Smith’s dialogue choices. Clerks, Clerks II, and Mallrats all share a common theme of raunchy, immature, and frankly gross dialogue that is entertaining in Smith’s debut, but quickly grows tiresome when that is all the viewer is exposed to. The writing in Clerks, albeit focused on gross topics, is still smartly written, and comes off as witty, without trying too hard. However, if one was to watch a clip from Clerks II, they would recognize Smith’s characters, because frankly, they don’t grow at all between the two films, and neither does their writing. Clerks II takes places ten years after Clerks, and yet the writing did not age at all.The raunchy humor loses its wittiness, and instead feels forced in Smith’s later films. Most of his big-budget films do not take place in his “universe”, and yet the writing feels like it could. In Cop Out, for example, Smith relies heavily on jokes involving raunchy descriptions of sexual innuendos, and continues with the vivid bathroom humor, both elements that audiences were introduced to in Clerks, 15 years prior. Die-hard fans of Smith may appreciate this continuation of style, because it fulfills their expectations that they have built-up over past films of his, but new viewers may not like what they hear.

     Smith himself has said that he is not much of a director, and instead focuses on the writing aspect. This actually has lead to him developing a style of sorts. This style is very simple, often medium-long shots of characters talking to one another, and close-up shots of action. The former example is littered all over Smith’s films, and really is what the rest of the film is built on. An example of the latter is in Clerks when Dante is opening the store, Smith uses close shots of him snipping the string holding the newspapers. This simple way of shooting scenes shifts the focus of the film from the visuals to the dialogue, which is what Smith wants. By giving the audience nothing of much interest to look at, he forces them to listen to what is going on in the scene, playing upon his strengths as a writer. While this is a clever way to direct your shoestring-budget debut in 1994, it is surprising that Smith has decided to carry this practice on in his later films. This could be an answer as to why Smith’s big-budget films always seem to be critically panned at the box office. While his quirky style may work on the independent circuit, large audiences are not satisfied with barebones shots of two characters talking. It is simply not entertaining anymore after he has used the practice for so many years. Again, Smith shows consistency in his work, giving the feeling that he is always creating these films exactly how he sees them, and not giving much thought to what a larger audience may desire.

     Over the course of his career, Kevin Smith has certainly developed a personal style, but does this carry over into being considered an auteur? By definition, an auteur expresses great creative control in their films, and this leads to their styles being recognizable. So it is this creative control that really becomes the deciding factor for whether or not someone makes the cut. Smith surely shows a continued style in both his writing and directing, but how do these translate into control? His writing, although consistent, does not show much merit. What began as snarky, witty dialogue that dealt with gross topics, it transitioned into a lazier style, but still dealing with the same topics. For his directing, Smith began his career by relying on shot/counter-shot, and medium shots on subjects’ conversations, and he has stuck with that method since. Cop Out, which was made on a much higher budget than Clerks, is certainly flashier than its predecessor, but the muscle memory that Smith has for shooting scenes is still there. We continue to see shot/counter-shot, and simple shots focusing on dialogue throughout the film. It could be argued that this completes Smith’s style of creating films, when in reality, it is more likely that this is simply a crutch that he has developed over his career. When discussing Smith and his style, Andy Williams states that “...usually his [Smith] films are distinctive; his style is that he has no style.” (Williams). Just because a filmmaker expresses consistency in their work does not make them an auteur. Smith misses the mark for holding this title at a fundamental level, simply because he lacks the creative control of other directors. Directors such as Wes Anderson utilize familiarly-styled shots, such as his perfectly-centered scenes, but use them in ways that are refreshing and fun to watch. Compare this to Smith, who still uses familiar shots, but not in a dynamic way like a true auteur would. Kevin Smith’s career has been built on him taking an uncompromising approach to his work. He writes characters he finds funny, in worlds that he has created and continues to populate with weird, uncomfortable stories. In an article featured in The Guardian, Dave Schilling has similar thoughts on Smith’s career: “If there is one constant in his [Smith’s] career, it’s a marked lack of interest in servicing anyone’s taste but his own.” (Schilling). There is a certain amount of respect that can be given to Smith and this approach, however, this may be overshadowed by the many grievances fans and critics have of his film career. Realistically, Smith will continue his career with raunchy, simple films, continuing to carve himself into Hollywood history as a would-be auteur.