Ask Nathaniel...

It's that time again. It's actually a perfect time since I need inspiration (this week has been.... difficult). Remember no 17 part-questions and no top ten list requests disguised as questions (unless you're okay with me just banking them for future inspiration for top ten list columns... in which case, shoot!). Otherwise, fair game! 

P.S. Oscar questions may be diverted to this weekend's Oscar column. Depending on what they be.

Distant Relatives: Lawrence of Arabia and The Lord of the Rings

Robert here w/ Distant Relatives, exploring the connections between one classic and one contemporary film.

Heroes, Real and Imagined

"The Lord of the Rings" was originally published in 1954, eight years before the release of the film Lawrence of Arabia. Technically it came first. Then again T.E. Lawrence rode through Arabia in 1916 besting J.R.R. Tolkien's adventure by 38 years. Really, if you wanted to continue down this path you'd have to go back invention of the epic hero tale itself. This is why these films make for a fascinating fit. They are, arguably, the greatest cinematic epic based in realty and the greatest cinematic epic based in fantasy. They have similarities as a direct reflection of their status as epic hero storytelling, and similarities so specific they transcend that label. Then there are the differences. You won't see me use the term "reluctant hero" here because Lawrence, though he may get there eventually, starts off expecting his adventures to be "fun." Frodo not so much. And it's safe to say without a spoiler warning, that you're aware that Lawrence didn't do anything in Arabia that saved the world, even on a small scale, yet that's just the mission that Frodo is tasked with. Lawrence's mission is a little more vague, creating chaos, trotting from one quickly conceived battle to another, eventually perhaps uniting the Arabs. Quite a ways from Frodo's to destroy the ring of power, save the world. But both are attempting to bring some sort of perceived restoration to a land and both are at the whim of a towering ancient history, of which they will soon become a part.
 
Both stories start off similarly enough with a singular character chosen for their je ne sais quoi and sent off to a far away place. Although that je ne sais quoi may be some combination of strength, resolve, and perhaps to their detriment, innocence. In other words, they both understand, or will understand that the trick to standing the fire is "Not minding that it hurts." Immediately there is danger, harsh foreign landscape and people, separated by clan or by race, defined by differences; the Bedouin, the Howeitat, the Dwarfs, the Elves forced to work together, united for the purpose of our hero. Following this is the hardship of travel, the escalation of war, battles by name (Aqaba, Helm's Deep, Damascus, Gondor), and an inhuman enemy, actual non-human Uruk-hai for Frodo, and for Lawrence, the Turks represented only briefly by the Bey of Daara who tortures, though not much more than we've seen of some of our heroes. Sometimes the pure evil of fantasy is less unsettling than the complexity of reality. Finally there is a resolution, an ending, or a semi-ending. But I'd argue that in both cases the resolution is only partially relevant.

Into the Darkness

We already know that Frodo will achieve much and Lawrence will achieve little. Their journeys foresee those ends quite quickly. What's more important is how those journeys will alter them, and not for the better. The term "epic hero tale" conjures up images of bravery and glory, but Frodo and Lawrence experience a whirlwind of darkness, fear, and corruption. Of course, the one ring is a symbol of power and with great power comes great corruptibility. Frodo falls deeper and deeper into darkness until he's won over by Gollum. Lawrence too lets his building grandeur fill his own head. But there's an even greater darkness at play. Early in the film, after Lawrence kills a man he laments, not that he may have to do it again, but that he enjoyed it. In so many ways, these men are the keepers of life and death. Victories slowly come filled less with jubilation and more with relief that the end is one step closer. Meanwhile the old men who run the world sit at tables and make declarations and have no idea just how little power they have, and how much belongs to one little person.

Epic hero tales that give us everyman protagonists, exotic locales, and thickening drama are a staple of storytelling. Here, even at opposite ends of the fantasy/reality spectrum we find two films that meet all the criteria for a quality epic. Did T.E. Lawrence's story make for a great film because it naturally met all the criteria of the genre? Because it seemed to be scripted? Is The Lord of the Rings such a beloved tale because despite the fantasy, the emotions, the personalities and the conflicts are so close to what we see in reality? These films cross over each other and back again and still are only bookends for cinema's rich collection of epics whether fantasy or reality.

Other Cinematic Relatives: Star Wars (1977-1983), Princess Mononoke (1997), Ben-Hur (1959), and The Harry Potter Series 

Oscar Horrors: Bringing "The Birds" to Life

Oscar Horrors continues...

Here lies...The Birds, whose only Oscar nomination for Visual Effects were shot down by Cleopatra. The birds themselves are just resting, waiting to come back and haunt us all.

Amir here. Few horror films have had the long lasting effect of Hitchcock’s The Birds on my life. As a child – and I shamefully admit, well into my teenage years - I used to get scared really easily in the theatre. I’d turn all the lights in my house on after a horror film, just in case something was lurking in the dark. But I’d sleep on it and the morning after, I’d forget all about whatever it was that scared me: the serial killer, haunted toys or ghosts.

Thanks to Hitchcock's classic however, however, to this day I’m terrified of birds. I hate the way they strut around, looking at us with their soulless eyes. Some time in my childhood, it was The Birds that forever etched this frame in my memory.

Such is the power of cinema!

Like most Hitchcock films, The Birds doesn’t rely so much on the actual birds to scare us, but on the psychological horror that comes with the idea of the town’s takeover; the impending sense that at any minute another attack might start. But in those small bursts when we see the attacks, Hitchcock knocks it out of the park.

He used a combination of elements, from real birds on the set to archival footage, and from invisible nylon threads to yellow screen superimposition to achieve the effects that he wanted. The crew insisted on avoiding mechanical models for the most part and chose to use trained birds wherever possible. The result of the prolonged shooting period and the complex post-production is nearly impeccable. The birds look as alive and vicious as any animal I’ve seen on the screen.

Needless to say, almost fifty years later, some of these effects look a bit aged, but the impact they leave is still the same. The claustrophobic terror they inject in us is still as intense. And I’m sure there are other kids out there who think of Tippi Hedren’s helplessness in that attic every time they see a crow on the wire or a flock of gulls by the water.

Other Oscar Horrors...
Rosemary's Baby - Best Supporting Actress
The Swarm - Best Costume Design
Whatever Happened to Baby Jane -Best Actress in a Leading Role
The Birds - Best Effects, Special Visual Effects
The Fly -Best Makeup
Death Becomes Her -Best Effects, Visual Effects
The Exorcist -Best Actress in a Supporting Role 
Rosemary's Baby - Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium
Beetlejuice - Best Makeup
Carrie - Best Actress in a Leading Role
Bram Stoker's Dracula - Best Costume Design
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde - Best Actor in a Leading Role
King of the Zombies - Best Music, Scoring of a Dramatic Picture
Poltergeist - Best Effects, Visual Effects
Hellboy II: The Golden Army -Achievement in Makeup
The Silence of the Lambs -Best Director
The Tell-Tale Heart -Best Short Subject, Cartoons

Roland Emmerich, Anyone?

File under: Things I Never Thought I'd Be Doing

...interviewing bombastic disaster movie king, Roland Emmerich!

And just when the interview was getting good, it ended! I had a million more questions I wanted to ask him like: Does Vanessa Redgrave even breathe dramatically when the camera is off?; Were all those male royals and their bastards in Tudor England really full lipped ginger pretty boys or was that just a casting preference for Anonymous (I couldn't tell them apart!)?; 10,000 BC ....what the hell?; Why have I never been invited to the über gay parties at your LA estate?; Was directing 90s muscle hunks Dolph Lundgren and Jean Claude Van Damme in Universal Soldier (1992) on set as fun as watching them be brain-dead super soldiers onscreen? (Hey, it was fun in 1992. Don't judge!)

P.S. I know that you're not supposed to like Anonymous, but I had fun watching it. Sometimes big bold cheesy underlining, playing to the balcony if you will, is JUST right for ridiculous conspiracy theories like "Shakespeare never wrote a word!". Sometimes you just want to hiss at hunchback villains dressed in black and swoon with lusty queens who go weak at the knees for poets.

Complete the Sentence. "The Last Thing I Watched..."

The last thing I watched was ____________  and it was _____________. I would have loved it / hated it more if ______________ .