Film School Rejects » Conrad Rothbaum

TV Review: 30 Rock 3.1 – Do Over

Conrad Rothbaum — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:47:42 +0000

30 Rock, NBC, Airs Thursdays 9:30/8:30c

Episode: “Do Over” (Season 3, Episode 1)

Synopsis: Jack returns to 30 Rock when he sees that Devin (Will Arnett) is having a psychotic breakdown and is attempting to shut the company down. Meanwhile, Liz is struggling to impress her adoption agent (Megan Mullally) as tensions rise between Tracy and Jenna.

Review: Season 3 starts out with a bang in this typically funny episode of 30 Rock. Not much has changed in the formula, style or laugh departments (all are still some of the best on television) and the guest stars are ample yet again. Liz is still neurotic, Jenna is still deluded (“I told you not to write back to your stalker!”), Tracy is still lavishly out of his mind. In those cases, the show has returned back to its hilariously funny status quo—another solid episode of 30. But what was different?

Jack decides to work his way back to the top position of G.E.—a position temporarily occupied by Will Arnett’s semi-recurring character, Devin. There are two paths in front of him—he can either seduce Kathy Geist (the offspring of Don Geist, former head of G.E.,) and reclaim the top spot whilst simultaneously weakening his integrity, or he can spend nine—no, five—years doing it the old fashioned way (mail-room mobility). When it becomes clear that Devin has completely lost it and is planning to sell the company, Jack decides he must shelve his dignity and give Geist “his gift.” This is why Jack is so compelling and funny—despite showing inconsideration and insensitivity, his character’s foundation is constructed by hard work and integrity. He is willing to start from the beginning, and he knows how—but when duty calls he decides to make sacrifices “for the greater good.” Liz saves the day in the end, of course, and has a moment with him, which prompts the question—how do you guys feel about a very possible Liz-Jack hook-up? That certainly seems to be what they are working towards.

The Liz storyline was a bit less engrossing, but perhaps funnier. We know that Megan Mullally’s personality-less adoption agent will not award her with license to adopt (and it is frustrating to see her co-workers and friends—in essence, her family– get in the way yet again), and that plot is only carried by humor. Strange to see a bland guest star on 30 Rock, huh? You would expect Megan Mullally to have more material.

Up Next Week: Liz (Fey) flies to Chicago to get out of jury duty and on her return flight ends up with an assigned seat next to Oprah. Liz jumps at the opportunity to share a few problems with the talk show host for advice. While Liz is away, Tracy (Morgan) and Jenna’s (Krakowski) feud continues leading to a wacky “social experiment” to prove whose argument is right. Meanwhile, Jack’s (Alec Baldwin) morality is tested by Kenneth (Jack McBrayer) after an Olympics snafu.

For more coverage of your favorite shows, check out the Control Freaks Archive.

Did you watch this episode of 30 Rock? If so, what did you think?

TV Review: Fringe 1.6 – The Cure

Conrad Rothbaum — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:16:36 +0000

Fringe, FOX, Tuesdays 9/8c

Episode: “The Cure” (Season 1, Episode 6)

Synopsis: In a Dunham-centric episode, we find her grappling yet again with her inner demons as yet another female victim is used as a guinea pig for the benefit of yet more evil science. Seeing herself reflected in the face of the latest radioactive dying girl, Olivia finds herself on the verge of a nervous breakdown as Peter makes a deal with the devil.

Review: Perhaps it is just that for the last several weeks I have been inundated with theoretical science and the latest sock puppet for the purveyors of the pattern, but this week’s episode of Fringe was most certainly the straw that broke the camel’s back. Especially juxtaposed with the last couple of weeks’ stellar, fresh episodes, I am unenthusiastic to see the formulaic nature of the show begin to show. In “The Cure,” not only does the formula begin to show, but the writers seem to want to beat us over the head with it.

It was perhaps the worst episode of Fringe so far—there was not a single compelling plot or direction took in it. Even the least engrossing scenes of Fringe were followed by entertaining ones, or an interesting bit of foreshadowing or characterization. Nothing in this episode is subtle: the foreshadowing came when we see the friction rising between Dunham and Broyles, and we are basically told that a confrontation between the two is coming, and why (Dunham actually mentions sexism blatantly to him, not trusting the audience to pick up on it themselves). Peter goes to Nina Sharp for a favor, and she ominously grants him one in return for a promise that he will repay the favor someday. I wonder if that will turn out alright. Also, we see the sexual tension build between Olivia and Peter. Obviously. Awkwardly.

The idea of humans as tools comes up again with the “Rare Disease” being injected into this weeks’ guest star. While I like the themes presented in the show, I feel that bringing them up so redundantly is not the way to communicate them. I hope to see some other themes presented in the next few episodes, and I hope they are presented in clever and exciting ways.

Despite the episode’s many faults, there was one bright spark in it, and it comes when Olivia’s true origin is told—apparently she shot her abusive stepfather when she was nine years old. Only, she didn’t kill him, and is angry at herself that she let the biggest monster in her life escape. This is the one poignant moment in the episode—Anna Torv is getting increasingly more comfortable in her character. Her slight, ironic, bittersweet smile perfectly complements her almost-faltering voice. We finally have a large missing puzzle piece: the reason Dunham is so traumatized by women in distress.

Up Next Week: Peter straps himself in to talk to the dead—“Wait, you’re going to stop my heart??” Apparently complications arise. See you then!

For more coverage of your favorite shows, check out the Control Freaks Archive.

Did you watch Fringe this week? If so, feel free to discuss below.

TV Review: Fringe 1.5 – Power Hungry

Conrad Rothbaum — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:30:32 +0000

Fringe, FOX, Tuesdays 9/8c

Episode: “Power Hungry” (Season 1, Episode 5)

Synopsis: Fringe blasted back onto your TV screen this week with its cracked-out science and haphazard overarching story! In the opening moments of “Power Hungry,” we happen upon one “Joseph Meegar,” a man with electro-magnetic powers that manifest themselves at the wrong time. He’s out of control, and Agent Dunham (Anna Torv) and the Bishops are the only ones who can stop him. On top of that, Dunham keeps seeing her ambiguously traitorous ex-boyfriend, John Scott, when no one else can. Did I mention that John Scott died four episodes ago? Yeah, that’s how this show rolls.

Review: Arguably the most lo-fi episode of Fringe yet, “Power Hungry” cannot be called a change of pace, because the word “pace” implies that the show is progressing at a set speed with similar installments, and the last few episodes have been surprisingly dissimilar to the first few. It looks like J.J. Abrams and his crew are making good on their promises to add variety to the show, and change the “pace” every step of the way. In this episode, the writers flex their surprisingly impressive literary muscles as they focus primarily on characterization.

Fringe is supposed to be a drop-in show, meaning that anyone can drop-in on any episode and still have an enjoyable experience without being confused by continuity (unlike, say, Lost), and it’s certainly true that the average viewer could have had a good time following the experience of this week’s misunderstood, manipulated villain and his mentally meek mishaps as he accidentally kills his mom, crushes his crush and maims his boss (this is cable, right?)… But the heart of this episode was in Olivia’s struggle with the memory of her ex-boyfriend.

Using Fringe science as a character-device rather than a plot-device for perhaps the first time, the writers excellently decide to bring back the mental communication experiment seen in the first episode, or rather, to expand on it. Apparently, the experiment had unfortunate side effects and, long story short, parts of John Scott still exist in Olivia’s brain. Olivia begins to have waking dreams where he appears from thin air and swears that he loves her and has always loved her. Making a common jilted lover’s fantasy a reality for Dunham, the writers gracefully illustrate the torment involved after losing a loved one using hypothetical science as a palette.

As far as the rest of the story, the episode draws an interesting parallel between Meegar’s confused guinea pig character and his dismay at his lack of control over his life and the excessive control exerted upon Dunham by her FBI superiors.

While perhaps it was not the most all-around entertaining episode of the lot (not a single CG explosion!), it was certainly the most exciting installment when it came to character development and story progression.

A Few Curiosities:

What do you make of Walter’s theory of humanity as six billion unique systems of electrical signals? It creeps me out to think that we are just electrical impulses scampering across the brain.
I liked the slow start in the first scene. You can tell they worked hard to get you attached to Meegar.

Up Next Week: A cure for a rare disease makes patients radioactive. Walter obsesses about cotton candy. Peter strikes a deal with Nina.

For more coverage of your favorite shows, check out the Control Freaks Archive.

Did you watch Fringe this week? If so, feel free to discuss below.

Indie Spotlight: Derrick Comedy’s Mystery Team

Conrad Rothbaum — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:00:24 +0000

You know that feeling where you laugh so much you are overcome with fatigue?

About ten months ago, Derrick Comedy posted one last video on their website (the memorable skit “Winks”) and then bowed out of making Internet videos until further notice. The first few months were difficult: I needed my fill of fresh skits saturated with dark humor and no boundaries. Every week I would painfully check the site to see if maybe perhaps possibly they had posted another three minute comedy nugget—and every week I would be experience sadness and regret as Donald Glover’s manic eyes stared at me from the icon of “Winks.” Eventually my painful withdrawal subsided, and when they posted a note saying that they had taken a break from making internet-videos to shoot Mystery Team, their first feature length movie, all I could muster was mild interest. It was only when I reserved tickets to their improv performance at the Upright Citizens Brigade theater in New York last week that my enthusiasm in Derrick was renewed.

Watching the trio perform on Saturday was a treat—engrossing and funny, as expected. But the real prize came when, after the show, we were invited to stay for the first test screening of Mystery Team– and the movie was pretty damn good.

The trailer will give you an idea of the plot, but for those opposed to youtube, the story follows a team of kid-detectives who solve low-intensity neighborhood mysteries (“Who stuck their finger in Mrs. Samson’s pie?”), only the kid-detectives aren’t really kids anymore—they’re high school seniors, and the mystery solving routine is no longer cute. 90% of the comedy is milked from one-liners about their sexual inexperience and hapless naivete (Dominic Dierkes masters the art of the one-liner here with countless perfect deliveries of stupid, innocent comments). The story kicks into gear when the gang receives a commission to find out who killed a small girl’s parents, and their investigation takes them into hobo-hangouts, sleazy strip clubs, a drug dealer’s den and a criminal corporation.

While I just briefly outlined the plot, don’t think that the story is the main selling point of the film. The fact of the matter is that the movie is genuinely hilarious. Mystery Team is filled with plenty of shocking and irreverent jokes. Its humor is often offensive, inane and balls-out—but almost always hysterical. The characters are perfectly constructed—they are shallow enough that you won’t take them seriously, but rich enough that you root for them. The entire screenplay is a balancing act that gracefully and delicately supports both the group’s ludicrous sense of humor and a plot that is engrossing enough to keep everyone’s attention for 90 minutes or so. The script truly succeeds in that it is an actual mystery story complete with danger, suspense and clues while also keeping you overwhelmed with laughter at its cynicism.

Here’s hoping for a release date for Mystery Team and more goddamn Internet videos. I need my next fix.

Discuss: Should Hulk be the Villain in the Avengers Movie?

Conrad Rothbaum — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:00:18 +0000

Ever since Marvel decided to branch out, it appears that cross pollination has been #1 on their agenda. With Iron Man containing a Nick Fury cameo (Samuel L. Jackson, no less) after the credits, and The Incredible Hulk containing a Tony Stark cameo before the credits, we can see the bricks being laid in the foundation of an Avengers movie. Soon after, Iron Man 2, Captain America, Thor and of course, The Avengers were all given release dates. It would not be out of line to assume that they will all tie into each other.

That said, it was very interesting to hear from MTV’s Splash Page that Iron Man writers Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby would like to see the Hulk take the role of a misunderstood villain in the Avengers movie. In Fergus’ words:

“You don’t want like 10 super-badass good guys fighting together. Where’s the fun in that? Let’s break it off a little. Friends or colleagues who become enemies is always an interesting thing because you know it’s based on love and friendship and that’s always the worst thing to have turn bad — is someone you actually care about and someone you actually believe in.”

Fergus’ words take on more meaning knowing that he and Ostby are penning another as-yet-unannounced Marvel movie. Louis Letterier, director of The Incredible Hulk, is not opposed to The Hulk as a bad guy either. Do you recall the last shot of Edward Norton in Hulk, with his ambiguous grin underneath glowing green eyes?

Letterier:

“I left the door open for whoever’s going to direct ‘The Avengers’ with our last shot. Edward [Norton] and I, we consciously decided to make the last shot of the movie when he opens his eyes and he smirks at the camera,” Leterrier told us. “Is he enjoying it? Is he malicious?”

It is also interesting to note that in the first volume of The Ultimates (the recent Millar/Hitch comic book reboot of the Avengers), the Hulk plays the role of the villain in the team’s first big battle in Times Square.

This vast network of Marvel tie-in movies gets me excited—I hope the stories they tell weave into each other not just plot-wise, but with characterization. Is that too much to ask for? I hope not.

Are you interested to see Hulk square off against Captain America, Thor and Iron Man? If not, who do you think would be a good foil for the team?

TV Review: Fringe 1.4 – The Arrival

Conrad Rothbaum — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:21:39 +0000

Fringe, FOX, Tuesdays 9/8c

Episode: “The Arrival” (Season 1, Episode 4)

Synopsis: This week on Fringe, we are introduced to a character called “The Observer,” a hairless man who has been present at the scene of many Pattern-related events. Soon Dunham (Anna Torv), Walter (John Noble), The Observer, and an as-yet-unidentified bad guy (famous face Michael Kelly) are all vying for control of a certain object of interest—an enigmatic, explosive cylinder. Meanwhile, Peter (Joshua Jackson) begins to grow discontent with his roles as “consultant” to the FBI and babysitter to his father.

Review: This episode of Fringe was a slight departure from the usual massive dynamic-chasing, fringe-science-using romps. Instead, we are given a bit more character development/ interaction. I found this fact very refreshing. Not only are we introduced to this “Observer” fellow (you don’t know how disappointed I was when a Google search revealed that he did, in fact have a name. I really wanted to just call him “Waldo”), but the writers realized that Peter needed a reason to stick around, and they gave him a great one.

Peter becomes predictably disenchanted with his new occupation and, after Walter’s latest tantrum (forcibly sedating an FBI agent and insulting Peter’s mother), decides it is time for him to cut and run. However, a wrench is thrown into the works: Michael Kelly’s character and his futuristic gun. Michael Kelly explodes on the scene ray-gunning an entire SWAT team in search of the explosive cylinder (the show’s first really cool action sequence, in my opinion). The search brings him to Peter, and he uses an interesting form of torture/ interrogation, wiring Peter’s brain and turning his emotions into pain. “When was the last time your father kissed you?”

Dunham becomes interested in the Observer after she notices him in two corresponding photographs that relate to the pattern. She brings the information to Broyles, who informs her that they have been searching for that very man for 3 years—from the first time he started showing up in photographs relating to the pattern (see Broyles’ “Where’s Waldo”-like smorgasbord of pictures). It’s good to see Torv becoming more comfortable in her character — I actually enjoyed her this episode, and almost related to her.

The show kicks it in high gear toward the end, when the search for the cylinder-missile brings Peter into a confrontation with the enigmatic Observer—a confrontation that so profoundly affects him that he realizes he must stay and answer all the unanswerable questions offered by The Pattern. Joshua Jackson continues to impress.

While not the best episode of the lot, I dug the character development and the new threads of intrigue provided by the writers. It’s an installment like this that makes me look forward to future changes of pace and the possible places the malleable structure of the show can take us.

Up Next Week: When a rather simple man has the ability to harness electricity, dangerous and deadly consequences follow.

For more coverage of your favorite shows, check out the Control Freaks Archive.

Did you watch Fringe this week? If so, feel free to discuss below.

Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes adds Rachel McAdams

Conrad Rothbaum — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:37:35 +0000

Sherlock Holmes has found a lady to complement his adventures as a gentleman detective.

Rachel McAdams (the beam of light that brightened Mean Girls, The Wedding Crashers, and The Notebook) will be bringing her uncanny talents to Guy Ritchie’s re-imagining of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s world famous character. She joins the already stellar cast that includes Robert Downey, Jr. as the titular Victorian hero, Jude Law as his observant colleague, and Mark Strong as the big bad (Blackwood—who is apparently not Moriarty).

McAdams will be portraying Holmes’ love interest, Irene Adler, who appeared in but one Doyle story, “A Scandal in Bohemia.” The use of this character and the employment of this actor are just two in a long line of interesting choices we have seen during the preproduction of this re-imagining, which begins photography in October. The film is primarily based on a forthcoming comic book written by producer Lionel Wigram, titled “Holmes,” which sees the 19^th Century icon in a modern setting with less observation and more action-adventure.

I don’t have to tell you that modernizations have traditionally had more lows than highs, but– I mean– it’s Guy Ritchie. On top of that, who doesn’t love Rachel McAdams and her dimples? The same goes for RDJ, who is the man of the hour. Let’s reserve any hype or judgment until the light hits the silver screen.

What do you think of Rachel McAdams as Sherlock’s love interest?

TV Review: Fringe 1.3 – The Ghost Network

Conrad Rothbaum — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:09:35 +0000

Fringe, FOX, Tuesdays 9/8c

Episode: “The Ghost Network” (Season 1, Episode 3)

Synopsis: After something close to a bio-terror attack on a bus leaves all of the passengers frozen in amber, Agent Dunham’s team enlists the help of average-joe-precognitive-artist Roy (Zak Orth) to track down the killer. Using him as a sort of satellite radio, mad genius Walter and his son, Peter, begin to unravel the plot which involves Massive Dynamic (again), the DEA, and, of course, an ominous third party. In the episode’s final moments, we see that Massive Dynamic is in the process of resurrecting (?!) double agent John Scott for reasons that are not yet clear.

Review: More hypothetical science is practically applied in the latest episode of Fringe. This week, the plot revolves around the cliché of the tortured psychic who uses charcoal to express himself (didn’t we see that in Heroes less than a couple of years ago?), and Dunham’s search for the killer. For me, the episode was the least of the three for a simple reason: It did not offer us much new material.

“The Ghost Network”, while it had its moments, felt like filler: the overall plot did not budge until its final moments. Treading water would feel fine to me (I am, after all, a huge fan of Lost) if the episode presented us with any fresh ideas. Instead, we see that Massive Dynamic still has a hand in everything, the interviewee still has something to hide, Walter still has a solution for everything, and Peter is still snippy. What’s more, the climax of the episode felt rushed and familiar—the episode didn’t bother giving us any allusions to whom the guy might have maybe worked for—and did anyone actually gasp when he jumped in front of the bus? The show’s formula is starting to show, and that’s never fun.

But, as I said before, the episode had its moments. Its shining moment came in the first scene, with the bio-terror-like attack on the bus. That scene was excellently crafted—it was particularly evocative when the sounds of reality fell away to only the pulsing rhythms of the soundtrack. I am enjoying more and more of Walter’s minor tantrums and hysterics, and the scene in the diner where we find that he is more aware than we give him credit for was a nice touch.

Curiousities:

The first scenes are always the best on this show. Be on time for the next one.
The piano is a nice addition to the lab. I hope the lab just keeps getting odder and odder and thus more endearing.
Since Walter’s past seems to consistently catch up with him (Roy turns out to be Walter’s old lab rat, and the visions are the results of various experiments) maybe we can expect a flashback episode?
“You were supposed to check in before you came home.” What are you up to, Peter?
Of the recent Pattern-related events: “You yourself are somewhat responsible.” So far, Dunham has been the least interesting character. Why don’t they just come out with it and tell us why everyone else thinks she’s so damn intriguing!
After all this, I have just one ultimate question: When you can interview the dead, who needs to download their conscience?

Up Next Week: The appearance of a mysterious cynlinder triggers odd behavior and surprising revelations.

For more coverage of your favorite shows, check out the Control Freaks Archive.

Did you watch Fringe this week? If so, feel free to discuss below.

TV Review: Fringe 1.2 – Same Old Story

Conrad Rothbaum — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:51:09 +0000

Fringe, FOX, Tuesdays 9/8c

Episode: “Same Old Story” (Season 1, Episode 2)

Synopsis: We’re back in the world of fringe science this week with FBI Agent Olivia Dunham (Anna Torv) in pursuit of a man who kills prostitutes. His method? Removing their pituitary glands. Things get complicated—the science this week involves hyper-aging humans and anesthesia overdoses.

Review: The plot thickens. Fringe is supposed to be a show that one can drop in on, but I imagine this being much more rewarding if viewed in the long term. This week, we see Olivia has some major issues with violence toward women (see hyper-fast pregnancy sequence) and more and more is revealed about the relationship between Peter (Joshua Jackson) and Walter Bishop (John Noble). Walter is still the ever-lovable comedic basket case, but did anyone catch the look in his eye when he snapped at Olivia, and how quickly Peter picked up the pieces—immediately saying, “Okay, that’s enough!” It was a side of Walter we hadn’t seen, and apparently one Peter has seen all too much of.

What we didn’t see this episode was much of Broyles—apart from briefing the dynamic trio and his secret meeting with some honchos at Massive Dynamic, he was mostly absent. Nothing happened between he and Olivia (at least nothing in reality)—but he seems to have retained his complete 180 from the beginning of the Pilot and is now defending Olivia’s merits as an agent. This episode tries to remind us of Massive Dynamic’s presence with their employment proposition to Dunham, but we don’t need reminding. I can’t wait for build-up of intrigue around the company to pay off.

As promised, the show gave us some fringe science this episode—and damn it if it wasn’t cool! While I’m still not sure that I like how easy it is to get information out of cadavers, the idea of a hyper-aging serial killer was certainly an interesting one. While the idea of government-funded genetically engineered soldiers is not a new one (read a comic book), the real inspired stroke here was to make the hyper-aging mechanism the crux of their failure. And let’s be honest here: how fucking eerie/ awesome was the end? That sent chills up my spine—if that was the twist presented in episode 2, what do you think the twist will be in episode 22? I, for one, can’t wait to find out.

Curiosities:

Another post-coital scene in a seedy motel. What transpires right after that scene—the man leaving her on the curb of the hospital—could only inspire me to say one thing: The men on this show suck.
A mention of St. Claire’s again, eh? Expect it to be a major plotline in the show.
I was happy to see more detective work this episode. It felt more realistic—however, this fact was immediately undermined when Dunham and P. Bishop raid the warehouse alone… two agents with no backup. Where is the backup on this show?? (I know, searching for realism in this show is an act of futility, but still.)
That homemade defibrillator thing was cool.

Up Next Week: Dead bodies of bus commuters are frozen inside like insects in amber.

For more coverage of your favorite shows, check out the Control Freaks Archive.

Did you watch Fringe this week? If so, feel free to discuss below.

The Strangest Story: Truth, Humanity, and Rashomon

Conrad Rothbaum — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:05:18 +0000

Every Sunday, Film School Rejects presents a film that was made before you were born and tells you why you should like it. This week, Old Ass Movies presents:

Rashomon (1950)

Sometimes four irregular puzzle pieces will tell a story. Juxtapose them, read between the lines, and if you’re lucky or imaginative or both, you’ll get an image.

Four irregular puzzle pieces. These are what Akira Kurosawa presents us with in his opus, Rashomon, which, as it progresses, becomes less about the thrill of its drama and more about subjectivity and the nature of humanity.

The story opens with rain, torrential rain (it IS a Kurosawa film) sweeping the town of Rashomon in feudal Japan. Two despondent witnesses to a brutal murder sit under shelter in a post-testimony stupor. Neither can believe the things they have heard or seen, so they decide to unload their burden on the audience: the story of a dead body and the mess of testimonies surrounding it. The three parties involved all tell a different story of rape, swordplay, kidnapping, and death on a single afternoon in the woods. Each story reveals something different about what might have happened, each story has a different murderer.

When watching the film, it’s rewarding to not bother with the truth and just live within the unique drama and nuances of each story. When the fourth, final story is revealed – the one that is closest to real truth – I realized that the truth didn’t matter anymore. To search for truth in the stories of Rashomon is to miss the point: what we’re talking about here is the subjectivity of truth. When Tajomaru (the ever-incredible Toshiro Mifune milking his horrifying, shrieking laughter) tells his story of the woman who consents to his aggressive advances (tying up her husband and throwing her on the floor), the story is true to Tajomaru. When the woman tells the story about her desire to end her husband’s maddening, loathing glare, the story is true to the woman. And when her husband’s spirit (channeled through a pagan ceremony) tells the story of his shame and suicide, we are looking at a dead man’s truth. Each of the characters had lied to themselves so profoundly, that their lies have become their realities.

Allow me, for a moment, to talk about a few different components of the film. Kurosawa’s visual vocabulary is excellent. I know, I know—complimenting Kurosawa. Why don’t I take a number and get in the back of the line? But when an artist/ author who happens to make films is so terse—to show the idea of bitter consent with just a hand crawling up a man’s back—I can not help but cut in line and drool all over my keyboard.

Kurosawa chooses his motifs carefully here—and perhaps the most brilliant motif is that of the sky. Shots of the sky are present in every story for a very simple reason: the sky is the only universal constant. We, as the audience, grab onto the image of the sky and hold it—it’s the only thing we can really trust. The score is excellent and versatile. It goes from bleating drumbeats and screeching flutes to understated piano and violin pieces to complement Kurosawa’s visuals. Without such a superb score, Rashomon would not be half the film it is.

When I spoke about irregular puzzle pieces earlier, I neglected to mention something. In formulating the phantom image, one has to read between the lines. To fill in the blanks. In Rashomon the blanks are glued together by its philosophy of human nature. The idea that humans are worse than fire, famine or plague—that they lie, steal, rape and kill selfishly and with little remorse—is the idea played with in Rashomon. The witnesses and audience are so bewildered by the tales of horror in the woods that the only conclusion they can draw is that humankind is the pits. The characters wrestle with the notion, and eventually they come to a different conclusion. I was glad to find that the outcome was favorable for humankind.

But this is just a story. In the end, even the dead lie.

TV Review: Fringe 1.1

Conrad Rothbaum — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:22:17 +0000

Fringe (Fox) Airs Tuesdays 9/8c

Episode: “Pilot” (Season 1, Episode 1)

Synopsis: In the series premiere of J. J. Abrams’ latest series, “Fringe,” we are introduced to the life of FBI Agent Olivia Dunham (Anna Torv). We follow her as she is thrust into a case involving paranormal phenomena, deadly viruses, and ominous tech companies. When her boyfriend and fellow agent (Mark Valley) is horribly disfigured and left in a coma due to their investigation, Dunham is forced to enlist the help of mental patient Dr. Walter Bishop (John Noble) and his bad-boy genius son, Peter (Joshua Jackson). Using Walter’s knowledge of “fringe science,” they can use methods that no FBI operation has used thus far—even going so far as questioning the comatose. When it becomes clear that juggernaut pioneer-science corporation Massive Dynamic is somehow involved, Dunham quickly realizes she is in over her head.

Review: So, here we are! Our key has freshly ignited the new, intriguing vehicle that is J. J. Abrams’ Fringe! The series starts on a low-note: the frightening illustration of a doomed airplane experiencing some intense turbulence as it passes through a magnetic storm and all the passengers/ crew are infected with some sort of hyper-virus. Strange decision to kick things off with something so gruesome and cringe-inducing, but what other show can claim to show a man’s jaw melting off of his skull in the first five minutes? I’ll tell you right now: I was watching this show in a group of eight or so people, and there was not one among them who could hold back a gasp at the sight of those horrible disfigurements witnessed during the show’s opening moments. Truth be told, there are a lot of grotesqueries throughout the pilot and my weak stomach can only hope that this is not a template for the rest of the show.

The pilot suffers a bit from what I like to call “The Introductory Episode Blues”—the show is a bit tedious in its first installment, introducing us to the life of FBI Agent/ swimsuit model Olivia Dunham (who is introduced in bed with her lover and later appears in black lingerie). We are shown her traitorous love, Agent John Scott, and her tough-love-believing superior officer, Phillip Broyles (played by the inimitable Lance Reddick, who exudes authority and absorbs respect with ease). The relationship I am most interested in seeing develop is the one between Broyles and Dunham: there is a sort of bi-polar quality to it. In the beginning, he won’t touch her with a ten foot stick, but in the end, he’s practically begging her to go off in search of paranormal adventure with him.

Pretty soon the investigation into the downed airplane leaves her boyfriend in a comatose state of translucent skin, and Dunham pulls some files on the chemicals involved in the incident. The connection leads her to Walter Bishop and his damaged son, Peter. May I please just go off on a slight tangent about Joshua Jackson here? I never did watch “Dawson’s Creek” so I did not know what a quality actor he was and is. In fact, here we have a case where the actor is better than the material he is supplied with. His talent fills the 3^rd dimension missing from his 2-dimensional character, and I am interested to see what he does given more substance. Back to the review—John Noble is equally compelling as the basket-case genius Walter Bishop, and much comedy is milked from his listless mental troubles (“Oh. I’ve just pissed myself.” “Great.” “Just a squirt.”).

Pretty soon Fringe science (the science of craziness) and Massive Dynamic (which needs to be capitalized, and I will fight anyone who says different) become involved, and we are shown some truly weird shit. Using electrical impulses from the brain and a hallucinogenic compound, Dunham is able to speak to her comatose lover in a truly cool/ trippy (dream?) sequence. Along with that we see a cybernetic hand and some pretty bitchin’ wallpaper over at Massive Dynamic headquarters. Once all this is introduced and John Scott reveals his true nature as a traitor (as another tangent, let me say here that I hate it when protagonists are in love with douche bags—perhaps this will lead to a “Lost”-like twist and we will find that he had Dunham’s best interests at heart when he tried to send her car off a bridge) and we are given a glimpse at the larger conflict of the show.

It appears that all of these paranormal happenstances across the globe over the last nine months are not exactly happenstances. They are connected, according to characters that obviously know a lot more than we do. It appears that J. J. Abrams is casting an even wider net of intrigue than in “Lost” and “Alias” here: he has set up the building blocks of something major and complex—and opportunities to say things about federal institutions/ employees and large, overbearing corporations.

Here’s to hoping we see the damn thing follow through.

CURIOSITIES:

-“…Responsible for some of the most terrifying terror known to man…” Laughter. I can only assume Reddick was ad-libbing there and that the intensity in his eyes was what saved that take in the editing room.

-What is up with the asylum Bishop attended? I remember him mentioning their “choice of therapy” and then his voice trailing off. Expect to see some more about this.

-Why is Peter Bishop so afraid of his father? Thus far, Dad seems like a harmless old eccentric.

-“In a place like that you lose a lot. You lose being trusted.”

-When does Fringe take place? I don’t seem to recall technology that is freely displayed at MASSIVE DYNAMIC ever being implemented, so it couldn’t be contemporary, could it? Perhaps it takes place in an alternate universe.

-I expect more betrayals from within the FBI. I really do expect this show to use its balls out science fiction to expose things about how the FBI is run and its intents/ purposes. If it’s not relevant to the world we live in today, the show is ultimately worthless.

-Time travel will be an element in the show. Duh.

-“How long has he been dead?” “Five hours.” “Question him.” I can’t decide whether I’m laughing at them or with them. The show has already proved that it isn’t beyond self-parody with a few well-placed lines, mostly from Joshua Jackson’s character.

-I’m not fully convinced of Torv’s acting ability. She’s Australian, right? Her husky voice attempts to cover up her accent, and it succeeds in that respect, but it also succeeds in calling attention to the whole affair. Oh, and she sucks at crying.

-In the interest of full disclosure, I have only seen one episode of the X-Files. Just how derivative is Fringe?

-Dying words: “Ask yourself why Broyles sent you…to the storage facility…”

For more coverage of your favorite shows, check out the Control Freaks Archive.

Did you watch Fringe this week? If so, feel free to discuss below.

Mark Millar Talks About His Own Superman Trilogy

Conrad Rothbaum — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:50:52 +0000

I don’t think I understand Superman.

I’ve never really been drawn to superheroes with big, flamboyant powers… and I know that’s a cliché standpoint for Anti-Superman Fanboys, but it’s simply true: I would much rather watch a flawed character in a difficult situation, pushed to their physical/ emotional limits… and (at least in the Supes material I’ve read—and I’ll admit that I’m not all that well-versed in it) Superman never seems to be truly in danger of losing it all. Even when writers try to push him to the brink everything seems to be resolved by just being a good guy who believes in good and good people and good things.

With one exception.

If you’ve read “Superman: Red Son,” you know of Mark Millar’s prowess as a storyteller. Just look at the final scene, where Superman reads the sentence Luthor wrote—the sentence that “summarizes all of his fears and insecurities”—and he…well… I won’t spoil it for you. Go out and read the book. The point is, though I don’t fully understand Superman’s appeal, it is clear that Mark Millar understands Superman’s character and all of its nuances—and I feel that through his eyes maybe I will come to understand Superman as well.

Which is why it was so exciting to hear that Mark Millar’s film version of Superman is this close to happening:

So. A Lord of the Rings-esque trilogy of Superman films—essentially a seven hour story broken into three parts? From Mark Millar, writer of “The Ultimates” and “The Authority” and, of course, “Superman: Red Son?” Count me in.

Apparently Millar has been formulating the idea for the plot of this trilogy for years—but only now when Superman: Man of Steel seems to be all but forgotten and a “very well-known” but as-yet-unnamed director has approached him does it look like he will get to see his vision come to life.

Of course, Millar could just be fucking with us—But I for one am salivating at the prospect of seeing Superman’s character realized on film via Millar. Perhaps he will finally show me what’s so great about a guy who flies at Mach 3 and shoots lasers out of his eyes.

“It’s a Hard World for Little Things”: A Wide-Eyed Look at The Night of the Hunter (1955)

Conrad Rothbaum — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 16:59:48 +0000

Wait.

I find myself listening to a chorus of children singing in a haunting, eerie melody.

I must’ve gotten lost somewhere. I’m supposed to be watching The Night of the Hunter, a film where Robert Mitchum, well— he loves hate and hates love. But here I am, and instead there are children singing to me, the lyrics assuming I’m a child:

Dream, little one, dream / Oh the hunter in the night / Fills your childish heart with fright / Fear is only a dream / So dream, little one, dream.

It’s those last two lines, sung by (seemingly) harmless children’s voices that stay on my mind for an uncomfortably long time. “Fear is only a dream,” they tell me. “So dream, little one, dream.” They want me to be afraid. I am a child, and they want me to be afraid.

Well, I am. When watching The Night of the Hunter, I take the place of a small child– growing and learning more and more of the messages underlying the story. The film, made in 1955, is about children. Oh, sure, it starts with Robert Mitchum, a “preacher,” talking to God in his car after a lazy afternoon murder, but soon after we are shown a family—in particular, a son and his father. The father had just robbed a bank and killed two men. He had already resigned to the fact that he would be hung; the police are not far behind him.

In that poignant scene the father struggles to find time to stash the loot and say his goodbyes to his beloved son—he makes the boy swear to never reveal the location of the cash (in his sister’s doll) and to never give it up. The boy tearfully agrees, and he watches the police drag his father away to be hung. In the days before his hanging, the father shares a cell with Mitchum’s character. One night, he murmurs about the hidden cash in his sleep—and that his children know where it is. Some days after that, he is hung and Mitchum is released.

Ever the opportunist, Mitchum decides to find his cellmate’s family. When he does, the real story begins. No one sees Mitchum, a charismatic preacher, for what he really is except the boy. The boy knows that Mitchum is just a greedy, vicious man, but his mother doesn’t. One thing leads to another, and they are married.

It’s excruciating to watch Mitchum’s knife-wielding preacher tear the family apart—driving his wife to shrill insanity with religious inanities and taking advantage of his position as an adult to threaten the children.

One could say that the over-arching idea of the film is manipulation—manipulation of religion, manipulation of authority, manipulation of innocence—but the most potent themes pushed in the film have to do with influencing children.

The film’s most compelling scenes involve the silent rage that drives Mitchum’s character, his threats with his switchblade, but the film becomes more than just a character study when it dissects the treatment/mistreatment of children. The most prominent theme is that it is not only his parents but the world around him that raises a child. The children in this film are abused, both mentally and physically, in ways I did not anticipate. Over the course of The Night of the Hunter, I learned things about the nature of being a child and being nearly powerless. While I wouldn’t call it a message movie, it is certainly a movie that presents valuable ideas to the audience.

At times The Night of the Hunter is difficult to watch, but the film’s subtext and Mitchum’s captivating performance solidify the film as incredibly re-watchable and ultimately enduring.

George Meets Laura In This New Clip From W.

Conrad Rothbaum — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:19:12 +0000

Let’s not let politics divide us.

I hope that Oliver Stone produces an unbiased look at George Bush with W., and I hope this as a liberal. I genuinely want to see how a guy like George Bush became president, and maybe see the events of his life in an accurate way so I could understand him a bit better. However, I just don’t see Oliver Stone presenting what did happen in George Bush’s life, rather, I see him presenting what “probably” happened.

That said, I was happy to see the clip below from W. crop up on CNN (of all places):

So here we have the future president (played with genuine swagger by Josh Brolin) meeting his future first lady (played nervous apprehensiveness by Elizabeth Banks) for the first time. Stone paints Bush as aggressive and arrogant when it comes to relationships and dating—an interesting interpretation of Bush’s character. I don’t know George W. Bush personally– I’ve only seen him give semi-literate speeches on the tube– so in all honesty don’t know what he’s like in his spare time, or what he was like decades ago when he was running for congress… So I’m not sure if this is an accurate or inaccurate adaptation of personality-to-screen… However, the characters (true-to-life or not) are interesting and the dialogue is well conceived.

It piqued a simple interest in me when I heard Laura (Welsh) say, “I read, I smoke… I admire.” It’s jarring to see someone who was only a figure standing beside her powerful husband take on a new life. Or it could just be that I’m a sucker for Elizabeth Banks.

In a way I wish this were like Citizen Kane—about Bush, but not directly about him. But that’s only me. It would be a small feat if Oliver Stone got me to sympathize with Bush, and a large one if he got me to like him.

W. will see a limited release on October 17th, 2008.

What do you say: Is there more to people than just how they vote, or how they run a country?

Danny Yount’s Opening Titles for RocknRolla Hit the Web

Conrad Rothbaum — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:43:44 +0000

As you may have noticed, Guy Ritchie is back. After two disasters, he’s back with an (apparently) great film. It’s RocknRolla—his return to Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels London-crazy-gangster form.

As you also may have noticed, Danny Yount’s opening titles for RocknRolla have also found their way online via his official site, and can be seen below:

[See post to watch Flash video]

Wait, wait. Who is Danny Yount? This may clear things up a bit:

Danny Yount is the creative director at Prologue Films. With Prologue Films and his merry band of designers, he has created the memorable opening title sequences for such films as Kiss Kiss Bang Bang…

…”Six Feet Under”…

…a nd the end credits for Iron Man, which you can find at Art of the Title (along with a bunch of other awesome opening end credits sequences not necessarily created by Yount).

The guy has talent, right? Right.

For more of Danny Yount, you can go to his website, or to his interesting interview about graphic design (just scroll down halfway).

Film School Rejects » Conrad Rothbaum

TV Review: 30 Rock 3.1 – Do Over

30 Rock, NBC, Airs Thursdays 9:30/8:30c

Related Reading:

TV Review: Fringe 1.6 – The Cure

Fringe, FOX, Tuesdays 9/8c

Related Reading:

TV Review: Fringe 1.5 – Power Hungry

Fringe, FOX, Tuesdays 9/8c

Related Reading:

Indie Spotlight: Derrick Comedy’s Mystery Team

Related Reading:

Discuss: Should Hulk be the Villain in the Avengers Movie?

Related Reading:

TV Review: Fringe 1.4 – The Arrival

Fringe, FOX, Tuesdays 9/8c

Related Reading:

Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes adds Rachel McAdams

Related Reading:

TV Review: Fringe 1.3 – The Ghost Network

Related Reading:

TV Review: Fringe 1.2 – Same Old Story

Related Reading:

The Strangest Story: Truth, Humanity, and Rashomon

Related Reading:

TV Review: Fringe 1.1

Related Reading:

Mark Millar Talks About His Own Superman Trilogy

Related Reading:

“It’s a Hard World for Little Things”: A Wide-Eyed Look at The Night of the Hunter (1955)

Related Reading:

George Meets Laura In This New Clip From W.

Related Reading:

Danny Yount’s Opening Titles for RocknRolla Hit the Web

Related Reading: