I learned early this morning that H.R. Giger, the Swiss artist notorious for designing the alien in Ridley Scott’s 1979 film of the same name, died yesterday, age 74.
Giger was a surrealist artist, working in areas such as painting, sculpting and set design. His more well-known works depict varieties of designs consisting of interconnected human bodies and machinery. Giger’s Necronom IV was the piece on which the creature in Alien was based.
Giger earned an Academy Award in 1980 for his work on Alien. In addition to the film’s titular creature, Giger also designed the infamous “Derelict” spacecraft and “Space Jockey,” which seems apparent when viewing Giger’s other works.
Giger’s designs in Alien were, of course, carried on throughout the rest of the series, and the “Space Jockey” (now referred to as an “Engineer”) and “Derelict” designs made their cinematic return for the first time since 1979—although the “Derelict” made a brief appearance in Aliens (1986)—in Scott’s Prometheus (2012), for which Giger was credited.
Because of Giger’s vision, the fearsome image of the Alien creature will forever be synonymous with science-fiction and horror. This is the legacy this man left behind, and I’ll say it’s a damn good one as far as science-fiction is concerned.
Giger (right) with Bolaji Badejo in costume during the making of Alien in 1978
I’ll start by saying I had high expectations for this film, and those expectations were exceeded. For anyone who loved The Avengers (2012), Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a must-see that will not fail to satisfy Marvel fans. It’s the true Avengers follow-up fans have been waiting for.
Unfortunately, the success and reception of Marvel’s Iron Man 3 (2013) and Thor: The Dark World (2013) were adversely overshadowed, rendering their status as Avengers follow-ups substandard.
The Mandarin twist in Iron Man 3 left many Marvel fans perplexed with a bitter aftertaste. The Dark World had the misfortune of releasing two weeks before The Hunger Games: Catching Fire in November 2013 in the United States, which was a far more successful and possibly more anticipated film. Catching Fire was still in theaters well into February, while The Dark World released on home media Feb. 25 (available for digital download Feb. 4).
These factors diminished the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s limelight after its explosion with the release of Avengers in May 2012. Iron Man 3 was a highly anticipated film in 2013, but was simply too different for the majority of Marvel fans to give it the same love as its predecessor. Too much ridiculous humor, no SHIELD, and a sorry excuse for a villain left viewers feeling betrayed. By the time The Dark World came out, most moviegoers probably just didn’t care.
Theatrical release posters for The Avengers, Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World
Then again, how in the hell does one follow Avengers anyway? That film, while hugely successful and mesmerizing, resulted in extremely high expectations for follow-ups. Oddly though, that’s probably one of the contributing factors to what made Winter Soldier so damn good.
Look at this way: If you put out an incredible game-changing superhero film and follow it with two substandard entries, releasing another game-changer next is going to make it seem like dynamite.
Now, I will say that as a fan of the MCU, I do not share the views of others toward the first two installments of Phase 2, regarding their substandard status. I enjoyed Iron Man 3 and The Dark World, particularly because of the elements that separated them from their predecessors.
When it comes to sequels, I don’t like seeing the same damn thing over and over again. People complained about The Dark Knight Rises (2012) because there wasn’t enough Batman in the film, among many reasons. My response to such a complaint is we just had a film with Batman dominating it in 2008. If such naysayers had their way, it would look ridiculous when one put all three films together. Why on earth would you want to pay to see the same shit more than once in a series?
I loved getting to see more of Tony Stark outside the suit and actually use his brain. And as far as the “phony” antagonists of The Dark World are concerned, to me, that film was more about Loki anyway. He’s certainly the best villain in this series by far, with the Winter Soldier now being a close contender for the spot. And Thanos, I’m sure, is going to blow us all away in the future.
I’ll agree Iron Man 3 and The Dark World were a few levels below Avengers, but people will look at them differently and hopefully in a better state of mind in a few years’ time. Yes, they had their share of issues, but each film definitely got better in succession, which finally brings me to Captain America: The Winter Soldier.
Due to the plots and characters involved, as opposed to those of its Phase 2 predecessors, The Winter Soldier was finally able to deliver that satisfaction of the Avengers sequel we’ve been waiting for.
(Caution: Major spoilers ahead)
In addition to the return of Chris Evans as Steve Rogers (who also had a small, comical cameo in The Dark World), we get to see some familiar faces of SHIELD for the first time since Avengers—Samuel L. Jackson as SHIELD Director Nick Fury, Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow and Cobie Smulders as Agent Maria Hill. Some from Captain America: The First Avenger also reprise their roles—Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter, Toby Jones as HYDRA scientist Dr. Arnim Zola and Sebastian Stan as Steve Rogers’ close friend Bucky Barnes.
This film also introduces a few new characters—Robert Redford as Alexander Pierce, a member of the World Security Council and senior member of SHIELD; Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson (a.k.a. Falcon), an ally of Captain America; and Frank Grillo as Brock Rumlow, a prominent member of SHIELD’s counter-terrorism team.
While Iron Man 3 and The Dark World were set on Earth (the latter partly), we were still missing a dosage of SHIELD, the agency that binds all the realms of the MCU together. There isn’t necessarily anything wrong with SHIELD taking some time away from the big screen, but it’s a hard direction to accept after Avengers. SHIELD’s return in The Winter Soldier delivers that familiar feeling we all had while watching Avengers.
I felt the writers downplayed the humor this time around. All the MCU films are known for making us laugh, particularly just about any scene featuring Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. The Winter Soldier still retains moments prompting laughter, but the film also took on a bit of a heavier, darker side.
The threat to most of the characters’ lives, combined with the overall severity and suspense of the plot and increase in violence, makes this film a tad closer to Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy (2005-2012), yet retains the key elements of a Marvel film. What I mean by “key elements” is the look of the film, pacing of it and portrayal of the characters.
Left to right, top to bottom: Chris Evans as Captain Steve Rogers, Samuel L. Jackson as Director Nick Fury, Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow, Cobie Smulders as Agent Maria Hill, Robert Redford as Alexander Pierce and Anthony Mackie as Falcon
What I liked most about The Winter Soldier was the story. I’m a big fan of mysteries and conspiracy stories, and this film combines both genres into a superhero film, executing it perfectly.
The sudden surprise of SHIELD turning on Rogers and Black Widow, after Director Fury is assassinated by the Winter Soldier, plunges the viewer into a state of fear and curiosity. What’s going to happen with our heroes, and why is it happening?
Then, to find out HYDRA infiltrated SHIELD in its beginnings nearly 70 years earlier comes as another shock. HYDRA infiltrates the agency, all the way up to its senior levels, in order to use SHIELD’s resources to rid the world of all potential threats, including civilian “risks,” to peace and freedom. It’s the whole notion of killing millions to save billions; nothing new to the comic book universe, of course.
This was a direction I never expected going into the film, and was more than satisfied with in the end. It presents that age-old question of “Whom do we trust?”
Toby Jones as HYDRA scientist Dr. Arnim Zola
SHIELD basically splits in two near the end of the film, in a sense becoming SHIELD vs. HYDRA. Redford’s character turns out to be the new leader of HYDRA, giving the Winter Soldier mission after mission (assassinations) to further HYDRA’s cause for the last several decades. But the truth behind the Winter Soldier’s identity is another secret entirely.
I loved seeing Rogers getting a worthy adversary in this film—someone who could go up against the Captain in hand-to-hand combat and actually walk away afterward. The two have three encounters in the film, the first being brief but powerful. The Winter Soldier actually catching Rogers’ shield in an impressive defensive move before throwing it back speaks volumes over any fight that would take place in its stead. However, that’s not to say any of the fights were futile.
The viewer gets to see Rogers throw down a hell of a lot more this time than his first two appearances.
In The First Avenger, we spent about half the film getting to know Rogers and see him undergo his transformation into Captain America. The rest of the film revolves around WWII-set combat zones and Rogers going up against Red Skull.
Avengers shows Rogers taking on Loki in Germany and a horde of alien invaders in the streets of Manhattan, but with the assistance of his fellow heroes. The Winter Soldier delivers a wealth of Rogers dishing out hand-to-hand combat with not just the titular character, but mercenaries and HYDRA members as well. Basically, we get to see more of what Rogers is capable of, as opposed to his previous appearances. I was actually reminded of Taken (2008) a good deal of the time, in not just the fluidity and agility of Rogers’s fighting moves, but also the camera movements and overall cinematography style. The fight sequences add a heavy punch to the excitement of The Winter Soldier, leaving viewers grinning out of pure enjoyment.
“He’s a ghost, you’ll never find him…”
There’s more though to Rogers’ conflict with the Winter Soldier than the simple hero vs. villain routine we expect going into a film like this. The Winter Soldier turns out to be none other than Rogers’ old friend Bucky Barnes, turned by HYDRA scientists during World War II. We were made to think Barnes fell to his death in The First Avenger, but as this film reveals, that’s not the case.
After undergoing years of torture, experimentation, cryogenic freezing, mind wiping and brain washing, Barnes is now a destructive product of evil his old friend fights desperately to save. While this journey of friendship isn’t resolved with the conclusion of this film, Stan’s multi-film contract with Marvel and a suspenseful, ominous post-credits scene tell viewers we haven’t seen the last of the Winter Soldier.
This film delivered everything I wanted and more. The Winter Soldier comes loaded with action, emotion, suspense, mystery, twists and turns, and a gripping story with heartfelt connections between characters.
We get to explore some of our favorite characters in deeper ways, but without getting too distracted or sappy. Everything is executed with just the right touch so we’re left with an awesome superhero film that isn’t afraid to get rougher around the edges.
What The Winter Soldier definitely did is pump me up even more for The Avengers: Age of Ultron next year. If that film can deliver what this and Avengers did, plus more, all I can say is we’re going to have one of a hell of a film on our hands. And the mid-credits scene, showing us the first glimpse of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, is only raising the bar as to what we’ll be getting ready to see May 1, 2015.
As summer draws nearer, we moviegoers start jabbering on about the summer flicks we’re dying to see. The same even goes with pre- and post-summer films, but the point is there’s something out there we all look forward to.
This year is a big year for comic book films with two additions to the Marvel Cinematic Universe – Captain America: The Winter Soldier (April 4) and Guardians of the Galaxy (Aug. 1) –, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (April 16 intl, May 2 U.S.) and the highly anticipated X-Men: First Class sequel, X-Men: Days of Future Past (May 23).
I, for one, am especially looking forward to Days of Future Past. It’s been more than 10 years since Bryan Singer was at the helm of the X-Men film franchise, and I must say it’s a relief to finally have him back. Now, of course, First Class wasn’t a bad film by any means; it was the best X-Men film, in my opinion, since X2 (2002). Plus, Singer was involved with First Class, so there’s that.
Other big films this year include, but aren’t limited to, Divergent (March 21), Noah (March 28), Transcendence (April 18), Godzilla (May 16), Maleficent (May 30), Transformers: Age of Extinction (June 27), The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 (Nov. 21) and The Hobbit: There and Back Again (Dec. 17).
Some of these I’m looking forward to, and others I won’t even think about. Two films I didn’t list, however, are at the top of my list – I Origins and Interstellar.
I Origins, an independent sci-fi mystery film by Mike Cahill, tells the story of a biologist and his lab partner uncovering significant evidence with the potential to change society. These details are, of course, vague, but what I’ve taken from interviews is the film touches on a man yearning to disprove the existence of God. It stars Michael Pitt, Brit Marling and Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey.
I Origins premiered at the Sundance Film Festival Jan. 18, and has since been picked up by Fox Searchlight Pictures for worldwide distribution. Reviews I’ve seen so far, few as they may be, have all been favorable. I’m curious to see what bigger critics and audiences have to say once the film receives a wide release, the date of which is still unknown.
Now, my reason for wanting to see I Origins actually has nothing to do with the director, the fact that it’s an independent film or even the story for that matter. I simply want to see the movie because Berges-Frisbey is in it.
I’ll go ahead and admit I’ve had a thing for Bergès-Frisbey since I first saw her as the mermaid Syrena in Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011). Due to her work primarily consisting of French and Spanish films, and Pirates being her first and only U.S. film up until I Origins, it’s been difficult for me to see her in anything else. I managed to see The Well-Digger’s Daughter (2011) (La Fille du puisatier) two years ago, my first non-English-speaking foreign film, but just that.
Left to right: Michael Pitt and Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey in I Origins
Actually getting to see Bergès-Frisbey in another English-speaking film, in a theater I might add, is something I’ve been longing for since Pirates. I can only hope the film delivers in terms of plot and performance, but it sounds intriguing enough for me at least, and Berges-Frisbey will only be a bonus.
Now, while I’m excited to see Bergès-Frisbey in another U.S. film, my most anticipated film this year is without a doubt Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar.
Promotional title card for the film
Moviegoers are no strangers to the name Christopher Nolan. His successful Batman adaptations – Batman Begins (2005), The Dark Knight (2008) and The Dark Knight Rises (2012) – gained him a vast fan base and the ability to take on virtually any project he wishes. I love his Batman films as much as the next person, but I’m fonder of his films set outside the realm of the Dark Knight.
Memento (2000) and Inception (2010) are definitely my favorites of his works, as well as two of my all-time favorite films, but Insomnia (2002) and ThePrestige (2006) also have a lot to offer.
Nolan has also demonstrated his ability to effectively pull off twist-endings, particularly with Memento and The Prestige, which I feel can be an upside to his films because audiences don’t quite know what to expect. This trend combined with a deep space setting, alternate dimensions and possibly time travel is something I’ve been longing for since I saw Inception.
Several other reasons stand for my desire to see Interstellar, and make it difficult to wait for the Nov. 7 release date.
Plot
Inception,to me, was a refreshing way of presenting science-fiction to audiences accustomed to a wealth of extra-terrestrial-related stories. Of course, we have unique sci-fi films like The Matrix, but only once in a blue moon, or so I feel.
A Nolan film about scientists exploring a wormhole in space delivers endless possibilities of what to expect. If Interstellar is anything along the lines of a hybrid of Memento and Inception, but set in space, yeah…I’m sold.
Writing
Left to right: Christopher and Jonathan Nolan
Nolan’s brother Jonathon is lending his writing talents for the Interstellar script. J. Nolan is the one solely responsible for Memento, as the film was based on his short story Memento Mori. He also co-wrote the latter two films of the Dark Knight trilogy. C. Nolan is co-writing the Interstellar script with his brother, and he already demonstrated his solo writing abilities with Inception.
Given these two, I would be surprised if the story is disappointing by any means. Then again, this varies on one and their interests, as the world is full of people without a care for Nolan’s works.
Cast
Nolan’s films are well-known for excellent performances. Interstellar presents a cast featuring Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain and Michael Caine, among many others.
McConaughey, whom I’ve always been fond of for his humor, is becoming one of my favorite actors due to his recent undertaking of serious work. Killer Joe (2011) forever changed the way I’ll look at him as an actor, in a good way. He was beyond incredible in the HBO series True Detective (2014), and his recent winning Best Actor at the Academy Awards for Dallas Buyers Club (2013) is taking him to new territories in his career. Now, he may just be exploring entirely new dimensions in Interstellar.
I can only imagine what McConaughey will bring to the story, and I’m certainly looking forward to seeing him in the film. That being said, Hathaway has never disappointed me either, and because it looks like she’s the film’s female lead, I’m all the more anxious to see her and McConaughey play opposite one another.
Chastain is another up-and-comer in the world of film, receiving two Academy Award nominations for The Help (2011) and Zero Dark Thirty (2012), and Caine is never a disappointment, nor a stranger to Nolan’s works.
Left to right, top to bottom: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain and Michael Caine
The rest of the cast at this point includes Casey Affleck, Wes Bentley, Ellen Burstyn, Leah Cairns, Matt Damon, William Devane, Mackenzie Foy, Elyes Gabel, Topher Grace, David Gyasi, Bill Irwin, John Lithgow and David Oyelowo.
Score
Hans Zimmer at the 2014 Golden Globe Awards
The musical score is the critical element that delivers 50% of a film. It delivers the extra boost in emotional depth and pace within the story.
Hans Zimmer is one of the most well-known film composers next to John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, Thomas Newman and Alan Silvestri. His scores for The Lion King (1994), Gladiator (2000), the Pirates of the Caribbean series (2003-present), the Dark Knight trilogy, the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes series (2009-present) and Inception have shown audiences his knack for supplementing both action and emotion.
Like Caine, Zimmer is also no stranger to Nolan. Of Nolan’s eight films, not including Interstellar, Zimmer has scored four. His score for Inception is my favorite of the four, and I’m excited to hear what he has to offer Nolan’s new sci-fi journey. That being said, this is still the one area in which I have some disappointment.
I was hoping to see Nolan reunite with David Julyan, the composer of Nolan’s first three films and The Prestige, for Interstellar. Interstellar would have been Julyan’s first project with Nolan in eight years.
I love Julyan’s score for Memento, and his work compared to Zimmer has always struck me as more subdued. Julyan uses more emphasis on strings and synthesizer in his Nolan scores, which I feel adds a softer portrayal of tenseness to the films’ drama. It would have been interesting to hear what Julyan would have done with a sci-fi film like this. I’m quite certain Zimmer will deliver though.
“The goal of this group (was) to do an animated feature from the day I started.” – John Lasseter
Feb. 3, 1986 was a date that would not only impact The Walt Disney Company in less than a decade, but it would forever change the art of animation. But why? What is it that makes this date so significant? Because, friends, Feb. 3, 1986 was the day Pixar Animation Studios started down the path to animation innovation.
Now, for one to commemorate this anniversary the right way, one must tell the story of how Pixar came to be. As I’m sure many are unaware, Pixar’s story begins long before the days of Sheriff Woody and Buzz Lightyear. Believe it or not, the individual truly responsible for Pixar existing at all is George Lucas.
George Lucas in 1983
Lucas’ ambitions and vision of “a galaxy far, far away” led to the formation of Lucasfilm Limited, LLC, Lucas’ production company, and its visual effects division, Industrial Light & Magic.
Pixar’s inception was Lucas’ recruiting Ed Catmull in 1979 to head Lucasfilm’s Computer Division, and the founding of The Graphics Group within the division. TGG’s primary purpose was to explore and develop computer graphics for film.
While only two minutes long and incomplete, The Adventures of André & Wally B. demonstrated the potential for computer animation when TGG presented it at SIGGRAPH (Special Interest Group on GRAPHics and Interactive Technologies), an annual computer graphics conference, on July 25, 1984. According to Pixar’s website, the short film’s highlights were the use of complex visible characters, hand-painted textures and motion blur, ground-breaking technology at the time.
Lasseter’s work on the short film and other TGG projects landed him a full-time position as an interface designer that year. However, everything changed for TGG in 1986.
The Pixar Image Computer
Despite TGG’s success in harnessing computer graphics, and putting them to use in sequences such as the stained-glass knight in Young Sherlock Holmes (1985), Lucasfilm was suffering financially. Lucas’ 1983 divorce and declining Star Wars license revenues after Return of the Jedi’s (1983) release were contributing factors to this financial crisis. As a result, TGG split from Lucasfilm, where it became a lone corporation called Pixar, named after the Pixar Image Computer used by TGG in its time with Lucasfilm. Catmull stayed with Pixar, becoming the company’s president.
Months after his May 1985 departure from Apple, Inc., Steve Jobs saw this split as an investment opportunity. He proceeded to purchase Pixar’s technology rights from Lucasfilm for $5 million. All purchase and stock pricing agreements between the two companies officially closed Feb. 3, 1986.
Steve Jobs in 1987
Now, we’re aware of Pixar’s legacy in film and animation today, but following Jobs’ investment, Pixar was primarily a computer hardware company. The primary product was its namesake, the Pixar computer, and one of the buyers of Pixar computers just happened to be Walt Disney Studios. At the time, Disney used the computer as a part of their CAPS project (Computer Animation Production System) to digitally paint the cells of 2-D animated films. The studio’s first film to utilize this process was The Rescuers Down Under (1990).
While marketing and selling Pixar computers, Lasseter and the other Pixar animators were continuing to advance computer animation techniques. From 1986 to 1989 Pixar created four computer-animated short films, two of which made history for Pixar. They were Luxo Jr.(1986), Red’s Dream (1987), Tin Toy (1988) and Knick Knack (1989).
Luxo Jr. became the first computer animated film to receive the nomination for Best Animated Short Film at the 59th Academy Awards (March 30, 1987). Tin Toy became the first computer animated film to win the Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film at the 61st Academy Awards (March 29, 1989).
Despite Tin Toy’s achievement at the Oscars, Luxo Jr. made the bigger impact; more so than any other short film in the company’s history for that matter. If it weren’t obvious enough, the short film’s title character became the infamous hopping lamp we all see in the Pixar logo sequence. The featured desk lamp has become synonymous with Pixar, and vice versa. I like to think of Luxo Jr. as the Steamboat Willie (1928) of Pixar. In that sense, we can all guess what Pixar’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) equivalent is…but I’ll get to that in a minute.
By 1990, sales were down for Pixar and Jobs had invested so much money at this point he practically owned the company. Pixar sold its hardware division to Vicom Systems in April 1990, and took on a larger role as a production company by using its computer animation for commercials.
1991 became the year that would change everything when Disney contracted Pixar to produce three computer-animated feature films. The first of these was, of course, Toy Story (1995).
Technologically speaking, producing an 81-minute computer-animated film was a huge step for Pixar. Not only because they hadn’t ever done it, but also because nobody had done it at this point. The story-writing process came as a bit of a struggle too.
Lasseter and his creative team began tweaking the film’s story to the recommendations of Disney executives, but the film’s first executive screening proved unsatisfactory. In fact, it was a huge letdown. Disney then attempted to shut down production and relocate Pixar to Walt Disney Studios to have more control over the film. Lasseter, as a last resort, pleaded for one more shot to do the film Pixar’s way. The executives granted Lasseter’s request, after which he and his creative team initiated an entire rewrite from scratch. In just two weeks, Pixar delivered the concept for the Toy Story we have today.
Toy Story hit theaters Nov. 22, 1995, was met with critical acclaim and made $191.7 million in its initial U.S. run from 1995-1996. To date, it is the sixth-highest rated film of all time on Rotten Tomatoes with a 100% rating based on 77 reviews. Its sequel, Toy Story 2 (1999), is Rotten Tomatoes’ highest rated film with a 100% rating based on 162 reviews.
The Big Four: (left to right) Joe Ranft, Pete Docter, John Lasseter and Andrew Stanton in the early 1990s. I would never take credit away from the collection of animators, writers, producers and actors that brought Toy Story to life. but I feel the need to emphasize the significance of these four individuals. Without them, the concept of Toy Story we know and love today probably wouldn’t be. Their passion and imaginations pushed Pixar’s creative team to make the company what it is. Sadly, Ranft died in a car accident on California State Route 1, Aug. 16, 2005. In addition to his story-boarding and concept work with Pixar, Ranft voiced characters in the first seven Pixar films. His funniest, and probably most memorable role is Heimlich the caterpillar in A Bug’s Life.
“”Yes, we worry about what the critics say. Yes, we worry about what the opening box office is going to be. Yes, we worry about what the final box office is going to be. But really, the whole point why we do what we do is to entertain our audiences. The greatest joy I get as a filmmaker is to slip into an audience for one of our movies anonymously, and watch people watch our film. Because people are 100 percent honest when they’re watching a movie. And to see the joy on people’s faces, to see people really get into our films…to me is the greatest reward I could possibly get.” – John Lasseter on Toy Story’s impact
Theatrical release poster
Toy Story was nominated for three Academy Awards in 1996, unfortunately not Best Picture, and the award for Best Animated Feature wasn’t created until 2001. The film did receive nominations for Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Song (“You’ve Got a Friend in Me”) and Best Original Musical or Comedy Score. Although Toy Story didn’t win any of the three, John Lasseter was presented with a Special Achievement award.
Toy Story’s success added Pixar to a long line of historical achievements in the film industry. Because of Toy Story, the world saw that the sky was the limit with animation, and with that, the future held a place for many extraordinary animated titles, many of which were products of Pixar.
A major shift in ownership took places in 2006 when The Walt Disney Company bought Pixar for $7.4 billion. This transaction was the result of years of disputes between Jobs, Pixar’s majority shareholder, and then Disney CEO Michael Eisner. Since the production of Toy Story 2 in the late 1990s, disagreements regarding Pixar’s three-film contract arose, as Toy Story 2 was originally planned for straight-to-video release. When Pixar moved the film up to a theatrical release, Disney still refused to include it as a contract commitment.
With further disputes over story and sequel rights, as well as division of labor and profits, Jobs announced Pixar would seek distributors outside of Disney. Obviously, this never happened.
Negotiations resumed following Eisner’s September 2005 resignation as Disney’s CEO; replaced by Robert Iger, Disney’s current CEO. It was after Eisner’s resignation when negotiations for Disney’s acquisition of Pixar began, completing May 5, 2006. Many of Pixar’s earliest animators and creative team members are now executives running the company, including Lasseter as Pixar’s CCO. Catmull still retains his position as president.
The buyout officially ended Pixar’s 20-year reign as an independent production company, making Cars (2006) its last independent feature. To me, as a viewer, this means the seven true Pixar films will forever be Toy Story, A Bug’s Life (1998), Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc. (2001), Finding Nemo (2003), The Incredibles (2004) and Cars.
Of course, even as Disney is credited (by word-of-mouth) with destroying Pixar’s legacy by having control over the company, Pixar still released critically and commercially successful films since the buyout. The list of films since Disney’s acquisition includes Ratatouille (2007), WALL·E (2008), Up (2009), Toy Story 3 (2010), Cars 2 (2011), Brave (2012) and Monsters University (2013).
Most of Pixar’s films since Disney’s purchase contain heavier themes, particularly Up, which explores love and loss in a way audiences probably didn’t expect upon their first viewing. With the exception of Cars 2, I would say all of Pixar’s films have matured since the company’s joining Disney. Although, the transition toward a mature tone really began with Toy Story 2, and of course, I’m referring to Jessie’s recounting of enduring abandonment at the hands of her owner Emily.
In the future, Pixar plans to release Inside Out (2015), a journey into the human mind; The Good Dinosaur (2015), a film probably similar to Disney’s Dinosaur (2000); and Finding Dory (2016), the highly-anticipated sequel to Finding Nemo.
Pixar’s studio in Emeryville, Calif.
As Pixar approaches its 30-year anniversary in 2016, one can only reflect upon the mark the company has left, and continues to leave, on the film industry.
From astonishing short films and an ambitious feature-length project to becoming the world’s pioneer in computer animation, Pixar continues to dazzle filmgoers and animation enthusiasts. And if the company’s impeccable ability to tell a story means anything, it’s that no matter what happens, the legacy of Pixar will be with us forever.
On this day, 46 years ago, the Communist People’s Army of Vietnam (PAVN), paired with the National Liberation Front for South Vietnam (Viet Cong), launched one of the Vietnam War’s largest military campaigns: the Tet Offensive.
The campaign received its name from the Vietnamese holiday Tết, Vietnamese New Year, which celebrates the arrival of spring based on the Vietnamese lunisolar calendar. It was during this celebration when North Vietnamese forces and Viet Cong launched the first wave of attacks, despite the two-day cease fire called for New Year celebrations.
The initial attack took U.S. and South Vietnamese forces by surprise. PAVN and the Viet Cong led a coordinated assault on more than 100 cities and settlements across South Vietnam with the strength of at least 70,000 troops, in an effort to encourage rebellion in South Vietnam and demoralize the U.S. PAVN and the Viet Cong even brought the offensive to Saigon, with the Viet Cong seizing the U.S. Embassy in Saigon for several hours.
Black smoke over Saigon during the Tet Offensive
The offensive consisted of three phases throughout 1968. Phase I lasted from Jan. 30–March 28, II from May 5–June 15 and III from Aug. 17–Sept. 23.
Militarily, the Tet Offensive was a victory for the U.S., South Vietnam and their allies, and a disaster for PAVN and the Viet Cong. North Vietnam failed to control any captured areas or instill any uprising in South Vietnam. The PAVN and Viet Cong suffered an estimated 45,000 losses, and while the U.S. and South Vietnam suffered a fraction of their enemy’s casualties, the drop in morale was severe.
President Lyndon B. Johnson was shocked at the scale of the Tet Offensive, and the enemy’s ability to coordinate such an attack, while then Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara resigned.
One of the biggest blows to U.S. morale, as a result of the offensive, was public perception back home. TV news coverage, capturing the truth of what the U.S. was really facing, stunned families in their homes, and thus began wide public demand to withdraw and end the conflict.
“(North Vietnam and the Viet Cong) have demonstrated, despite all our reports of progress, of government strength and of enemy weakness, that half a million American soldiers with 700,000 Vietnamese allies, with total command of the air, total command of the sea, backed by the huge resources and the most modern weapons, that we are unable to secure even a single city from the attacks of an enemy whose total strength is about 250,000.” – Senator Robert Kennedy, Feb. 7, 1968
(Caution: Contains graphic content)
Since the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, films have been made to depict the horrors, politics and history of the conflict. I have seen a number of these films, but only two of them left a lasting impact.
Apocalypse Now (1979)
His first major venture after The Godfather Part II (1974), Francis Ford Coppola’s film about a classified mission in the Cambodian jungle during the Vietnam War does more than show audiences the ongoing conflict in Southeast Asia. Apocalypse Now paints a vivid picture of the fragility of one’s psyche.
Based on Joseph Conrad’s novella Heart of Darkness, Apocalypse Now follows Capt. Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen) on a mission through the jungle to assassinate rogue Special Forces Col. Walter E. Kurtz (Marlon Brando).
In the film’s 2 ½ hours, the audience is taken into combat alongside the U.S. 1st Cavalry Division, led by Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore (Robert Duvall), through the remote jungles of Vietnam and Cambodia via the fictional Nung River, and into a village and temple flooded with Montagnard warriors led by the insane Kurtz.
I first learned of this film at the age of 7, but never saw it until I was 19. Before seeing Apocalypse Now, my perception was that the film focused solely on combat and the Vietnam War itself. I couldn’t have been more wrong or surprised at my first viewing.
My current impression is that Apocalypse Now, despite its edginess and obscurity, is more than a war film; Coppola aims to depict the mental consequences of war. Sheen’s first scene alone shows this. We see a man broken by combat and “non-existent” operations thrown back into the mess of things because despite being broken, war is his element. And as if the imagery of the film weren’t enough, Sheen’s chilling narration ensures the viewer keeps pace with the plot.
In regard to the Vietnam War, Apocalypse Now depicts the arrogance of U.S. troops during the conflict, the heavy use of the Bell UH-1 Iroquois (Huey) military helicopter, the unpredictable nature of the territory and youth of U.S. combatants.
The 2006 Complete Dossier release presents Apocalypse Now in two acts, which are polar opposites in terms of disturbing content as far as I’m concerned.
In watching Act I, one takes in the initiation of a secret mission, combat and the socializing of soldiers. Act II paints an entirely different picture, leaving viewers asking “What the hell?” most of the time. I’d be lying if I said from the moment Willard enters Kurtz’s camp to the end credits my head wasn’t tilted to the side with a confused squint of my eyes. It’s not for the average moviegoer, and if the average moviegoer dwells in repeat viewings, it would probably outlast whatever tolerance they have.
That being said, I very much admire Apocalypse Now as a film. It’s certainly unique in its portrayal of the Vietnam War, in comparison to other such films. It stands as one of Coppola’s finest works next to The Godfather series, and one of the most impactful American films in cinematic history.
We Were Soldiers (2002)
The second film is more on the lines of what we think when we hear “war film.”
Based on the book We Were Soldiers Once … And Young, written by retired Lt. Gen. Hal Moore and reporter Joseph L. Galloway, Randall Wallace’s film presents a dramatized version of the Battle of Ia Drang.
The Battle of Ia Drang was the first major battle between the U.S. Army and the People’s Army of Vietnam; essentially the beginning of direct U.S. involvement in combat during the Vietnam War.
The battle took place from Nov. 14-18, 1965 in the Ia Drang Valley in South Vietnam.
As the film depicts, U.S. Army soldiers were sent on a search-and-destroy mission to find the enemy force behind the Siege of Plei Me. Facing both PAVN and Viet Cong forces, the U.S. 7th and 5th Cavalry Regiments were assisted by air support via Hueys and B-52 bombers. The battle ended with approximately 1,000 U.S. casualties and approximately 2,000 PAVN/VC casualties, and an inconclusive victor. The Battle of Ia Drang symbolized a long road of combat and political distress that wouldn’t end for another 10 years.
Bruce P. Crandall’s UH-1 Huey helicopter and U.S. Air Cavalrymen under fire during the Battle of Ia Drang
We Were Soldiers, like Apocalypse Now, depicts the youth and innocence of many U.S. soldiers during the Vietnam War, as well as the overconfidence of U.S. combatants. In many ways, We Were Soldiers bears similarity to the dramatized combat seen in Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan (1998) and HBO’s Band of Brothers (2001). I sometimes think of We Were Soldiers as the Vietnam-version of Saving Private Ryan, while remembering the former tells a completely different type of story, despite the war setting.
The film is definitely heartbreaking to watch, with one of its deepest moments taking place after the battle, when Lt. Col. Moore (Mel Gibson) expresses never being able to forgive himself for his men dying while he lived. The highlight of the film, for me, is Moore’s speech, delivered prior to the regiment’s arrival in Vietnam.
“I can’t promise you that I will bring you all home alive. But this I swear before you and before Almighty God: That when we go into battle, I will be the first to set foot on the field, and I will be the last to step off. And I will leave no one behind. Dead or alive, we will all come home together. So help me God.” – Mel Gibson as Lt. Col. Hal Moore
Barry Pepper plays war-reporter Joseph Galloway, who enters the battle field to witness and tell the story of what took place in the Ia Drang valley. Another unforgettable moment, this one at the height of the battle, takes place between Galloway and Sgt. Maj. Basil L. Plumley (Sam Elliott). Plumley gives him a weapon, prompting Galloway to respond, “I’m a non-combatant, sir.” Plumley blatantly replies, “Ain’t no such thing today, boy.” This scene has always stuck out to me as a message that in battle, every person, no matter their reason for being there, has to watch the back of the person next to them because it’s the only way to survive.
As the Battle of Ia Drang occurred at an early stage of U.S. involvement in the war, proper casualty-notification teams were not established, resulting in the use of taxi cab drivers for delivery. Julia Compton Moore (Madeleine Stowe), Lt. Col. Moore’s wife, took the responsibility of delivering notification telegrams to fallen soldiers’ next of kin, solely consisting of widows in the film. Her complaints drove the Army to resolve the situation.
While We Were Soldiers isn’t 100% faithful to its literary counterpart, the film is still a fine piece of war-cinema. Both sides are treated fairly, more so than most war films depict at least, and the film in itselfis a memorable and outstanding depiction of leadership and teamwork. Its style and story bear a huge contrast from Apocalypse Now, but both films share the intent to preserve war and its consequences in our memories, and to ensure we always remember war’s true cost.
One of the panels of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial displaying names of fallen U.S. service members
So I decided to celebrate the dawn of 2014 with another one of Martin Scorsese’s insanely graphic pictures: The Wolf of Wall Street.
The Wolf of Wall Street stands as Scorsese’s fifth collaboration with Leonardo DiCaprio — following Gangs of New York (2002), The Aviator (2004), The Departed (2006) and Shutter Island (2010) — and I say the pairing has yet to falter.
Theatrical poster
(Caution: Spoilers ahead)
Set in the 80s and 90s, The Wolf of Wall Street tells the true story of stockbroker Jordan Belfort (DiCaprio), who after becoming a broker for a Wall Street firm, struggles to find work following Black Monday in 1987. Later, while working at a boiler room dealing solely with penny stocks in Long Island, Belfort uses his Wall Street tactics to make a fortune.
Joined by a group of friends, including Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill), Belfort starts his own brokerage firm, Stratton Oakmont, where employees make millions per week and participate in a variety of daily lewd acts as a means of celebrating their rewarding lifestyle.
As the majority of Stratton Oakmont’s monetary strategies are illegal, heat is soon brought down at the hands of the FBI and Securities and Exchange Commission. Combined with more drugs and sex than the average moviegoer can probably handle, the rest of the film heads down Belfort’s psychotic path to prison, after which he hosts seminars on selling techniques.
Scorsese bases his film on Belfort’s memoir of the same name, and certainly took no liberties with watering down Belfort’s life. There was probably more nudity in this film than any other I’ve seen so far. If one desires to see DiCaprio engage in numerous sexual acts with hordes of strange women, this is definitely the film for them. I would even venture to say The Wolf of Wall Street features more graphic content than Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction (1994).
Leonardo DiCaprio as Jordan Belfort
I’m not hugely familiar with Scorsese’s work — having only seen Taxi Driver (1976), Casino (1995), The Departed, Shutter Island, and bits of Goodfellas (1990) — but it wasn’t difficult to pick out certain trends from his other pictures. One of the biggest, to me, was DiCaprio’s narration, which reminded me of Goodfellas and Casino the entire time.
My favorite creative aspect of the film was Scorsese’s use of “breaking the fourth wall.” There are several moments, namely in the beginning, in which DiCaprio’s character purposefully addresses the viewer as if he’s giving advice on how to live. I don’t see that all too often in films, so it’s always a nice treat in terms of breaking the illusionary barrier of film.
The only thing I wasn’t fond of was the film’s length, running at a daunting 179 minutes. For a party-crazed biopic, three hours may be a bit much, but that’s not to say the movie had any dull moments. I’m simply recommending to viewers to be sure they take a trip to the restroom prior to the film’s start.
Regarding the big picture, The Wolf of Wall Street is about the ugly side of life. There is a saying that goes something along the lines of, “All the money in the world can’t buy happiness.” DiCaprio’s character just had that problem, the one we’ve all seen, where he just can’t quit. He can’t throw in the towel.
Like Walter White from Breaking Bad (2008-2013), Jordan Belfort simply couldn’t say no. He let the greed and materialism run his life, which as far as I’m concerned, isn’t a way to live.
The Departed remains my favorite of Scorsese’s films, but The Wolf of Wall Street isn’t anything short of a winner.
Like summer, the holiday season is a time for big cinematic features. One of the several major titles showing this season is Saving Mr. Banks, The Walt Disney Co.’s next feat in storytelling which presents the difficulty of adapting Mary Poppins (1964) to the big screen.
Theatrical poster for the film
(Caution: Spoilers ahead)
Set in 1961, Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) repeatedly attempts to acquire the film rights to P.L. Travers’ (Emma Thompson) Mary Poppins book series.
The film focuses on Travers’ struggle to ensure the story of Mary Poppins be told the right way; no dilution from singing, dancing and animation.
“I won’t have her turned into one of your silly cartoons!” Travers exclaims to Disney in the film.
The plot intertwines with flashbacks to 1906 Queensland, Australia that highlight moments of Travers’ childhood. The significance of these sequences is to show the audience how the death of Travers’ alcoholic father (Colin Farrell) served as the seed of Mary Poppins’ inception. Travers at one point in the film indirectly informs Disney that Mary Poppins doesn’t arrive to save the children, as he originally thought. Disney later realizes it’s the father Mary Poppins is there to save, hence the film’s title.
I’ll admit that while I’m a DIS fan, I’m not all that familiar with Mary Poppins, but this film told a heartwarming story nonetheless. If anything, Saving Mr. Banks attracted me to just how important Mary Poppins was to Disney as a storyteller. Another one of the reasons I’m fond of this film though, is its deepest theme. Despite what many may think, sometimes there’s a lot more to a story than what one sees with the naked eye.
Amidst all the “DIS is an evil monster corporation” bullshit I hear every now and again, I’m confident in believing those who spew such garbage aren’t aware of the company’s early day-struggles and emotional inspirations behind the majority of its projects, particularly those in Disney’s lifetime.
Saving Mr. Banks shows that behind a DIS family classic like Mary Poppins lies a personal story of love and loss. I can’t speak for how accurate the film is in portraying reality, but even if it were completely inaccurate, it’s the general message that matters. Plus, the performances are outstanding. This is obvious in regard to the leads, but even Paul Giamatti’s role as Travers’ chauffeur during her time in California is gripping.
Overall, Saving Mr. Banks is a great film that offers laughter, sadness and heartwarming joy. It’s well-made, memorable and reminds us that inspiration, for even some of the most joyous stories, can come from the deepest places of our hearts.
A little bit of WordPress and Storify to countdown 10 of my favorite Christmas films. Some of them are classics, and others are just personal favorites.
Of course, you can bet I’ll be watching all of them, and more, this year.
I remember when The Hunger Games came out in March 2012, several questions stood out in my mind: What’s with this “district” stuff? Who’s Jennifer Lawrence? Who cares?
I admit I spoke too soon because when the movie came out on home media eight months later, I was drawn into watching it, thanks to my sister, and loved it.
Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen.
Hype tends to be a problem with me and theatrical releases. For some reason, the constant jabbering turns me off, unless it’s something I have interest in prior to the hype. Of course, what winds up happening is I see eventually see the hyped film and like it. That’s what happened with The Hunger Games.
There’s a lot of style and delusional promoting of the annual Hunger Games, making the contestants into celebrities and distilling the games into something glamorous. Then reality sets in and the viewer realizes the games are anything but. The scene in the first film in which the games commence is powerful to say the least. No ambient sound, just a blaring tone behind rapid camera movement and death.
Theatrical release poster
After the film ended, my first thought was “How is the second one going to be?” I felt if it were simply a rehash of its predecessor, then what would be the point? One could say to read the books, and while I may at some point, that point just isn’t today. Perhaps I want to be surprised since I experienced The Hunger Games from the film perspective first. All in all, however, I heavily anticipated The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, and not only found it to be a fantastic sequel, but a great movie in general.
Since Catching Fire released Friday, I’ve been coming across internet discussions comparing it to The Empire Strikes Back (1980) in terms of sequel-quality. After seeing Catching Fire today, I understand these comparisons. Like Empire with Star Wars (1977), Catching Fire topped its predecessor in every way.
(Caution: Spoilers ahead)
The drama, the combat, the character development…all of it. We see how everyone deals with the first film’s events, and how the inevitable revolution begins to take shape. The film’s twist-ending turns the conspiracy on the conspirators, which is always satisfying, with a portion of the victors and even some from within the Capitol planning to overthrow those in power. Learning such information in the last two minutes of the film only gears us up for the ultimate conflict, and, of course, this is where I have a problem.
Donald Sutherland as President Snow (left) and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Plutarch Heavensbee (left), the film’s antagonists
Like the Harry Potter series, Hunger Games will present its final act to the audience in two parts. Like most, I’m against this “artistic direction” Hollywood’s become so fond of in recent years because it takes tension away from the viewer’s anticipation of the finale. It’s not television. This isn’t a mini-series. When you have a trilogy, ideally, there should be two cliffhangers; one after the first part and the other after the second. The second cliffhanger leads to the conclusion. That’s the whole point of a trilogy.
I find the whole “there’s too much in the book for one movie” argument to be bullshit. If Peter Jackson can successfully make Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003), which included quite a bit of material from the novel version of The Two Towers, into one film, such an argument is invalid. Make the finale one long-ass movie, I don’t care. I’ll still want to see it. Seriously, what’s the problem with that? Make it however long it needs to be and stick a 15-minute intermission in the middle like the old days. This is doable, except for the fact that most folks in contemporary society don’t have the patience for such an experience; therefore, it’s not economically viable to Hollywood executives.
Having presented my frustration and solution, I’ll leave my rant at that.
As to my favorite part of Catching Fire, it was when Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) brings down the entire dome, just before the end. As lightening strikes, she wraps her arrowhead in wire before shooting it up into the false sky. The charged arrow makes contact, destroying the illusory arena and taking the “games” off the air. Just makes her more of a badass than she already was.
If there’s any one message the Hunger Games series delivers, it’s this: all it takes is one person to inspire hope and make a stand against oppression.
President Kennedy, his wife Jacqueline and Governor of Texas John Connally in the presidential limousine in Dallas, Nov. 22, 1963
Today marks the 50th anniversary of one of the most tragic and impactful events in U.S. history.
At approximately 9 a.m., Nov. 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy delivered a speech in the Grand Ballroom of the Hotel Texas in Fort Worth speaking highly of Texas and its role in the country’s efforts against communism.
At approximately 11:40 a.m., Kennedy traveled, with his wife Jacqueline, to Dallas where he would speak at the Dallas Trade Mart.
Mary Moorman’s polaroid photo taken barely a second after the fatal head shot
At 12:30 p.m., Parkland Memorial Hospital became the new destination for the presidential motorcade when shots rang out in Dealey Plaza. Connally received injuries to his chest, wrist and thigh, but survived. Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1 p.m. from a single gunshot wound to the head.
At 12:45 p.m., a description of the assassin went out to Dallas police. Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit was on patrol at approximately 1:11-1:14 p.m. when he stopped a man matching the description. The suspect then proceeded to shoot and kill officer Tippit. At approximately 1:40 p.m., 24-year-old Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested at the Texas Theatre and charged with Tippit’s murder.
Lee Harvey Oswald’s mugshot (top), Robert Jackson’s Pulitzer-winning photo of Jack Ruby shooting Oswald in the basement of Dallas Police Headquarters (bottom)
After two days in Dallas police custody, and being additionally charged with the murder of President Kennedy, Oswald was to be transported from Dallas Police Headquarters to Dallas County Jail. While being escorted to an armored car in the basement of Dallas Police Headquarters, Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby shot and killed Oswald, live on national television – 11:21 a.m., Nov. 24, 1963.
The President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy (the Warren Commission), established by President Johnson Nov. 29, 1963 and made available to the public Sept. 27, 1964, concluded that Oswald, acting alone, killed Kennedy, and wounded Connally, with three shots fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository with a 6.5 mm Carcano carbine. The commission also concluded that Oswald killed Tippit, and Ruby, acting alone, killed Oswald.
While this is the official conclusion as to what took place 50 years ago, some continue to find the Warren Commission’s findings controversial, resulting in numerous conspiracy theories involving parties such as the Central Intelligence Agency, Soviet Russia, the mafia, Fidel Castro, anti-Castro Cuban exiles and even former President Johnson.
What is certain is that the events of Nov. 22, 1963, like those of Dec. 7, 1941 and Sept. 11, 2001, will live on for generations because of the unforgettable imagery and stories associated with them.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
To further commemorate this historic date, I continue with the recognition of two films, both of which are products of the Kennedy assassination.
JFK (1991)
Based on the trial of Clay Shaw in 1969, prosecuted by then New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone presents a film that emphasizes many of the questions surrounding Kennedy’s murder.
Kevin Costner portrays Garrison, who firmly believes Kennedy’s assassination was a coup d’état carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency, involving Clay Shaw, played by Tommy Lee Jones. He presents this theory in an elaborate courtroom sequence which starts with the showing of the Zapruder film, and ends with an emotional closing argument where Garrison asks the jury not to forget their “dying king.”
This film received criticism for distorting facts and having the potential to misinform moviegoers unfamiliar with the Kennedy assassination. In response, Stone said, “It’s just a movie.”
Personally, I like the film. It’s a riveting drama and one of Costner’s best performances. In regard to what JFK presents on the assassination, I admit I was sucked into perceiving the film as fact upon my first viewing five years ago, simply because I didn’t know any better. Since then, however, I’ve come to understand several real-life persons were merged into one, like Kevin Bacon’s character, and certain events which take place in the film didn’t occur in reality, such as Garrison’s meeting with X.
The entire film is speculation, and while it can get the viewer thinking, this isn’t the film I recommend watching first if one desires to learn about the Kennedy assassination. That is the second of the two films I’ll discuss.
JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America (2009)
This is the film one needs to watch when it comes to satisfying the curiosities on the Kennedy assassination.
Presented by The History Channel, Oct. 11, 2009, 3 Shots is a documentary that presents three hours of archived news footage and home movies in two parts. The first part presents Kennedy’s morning in Fort Worth to the moment Oswald is shot. The second dives into the events’ aftermath, spanning three decades.
It is an objective film. No narration. No thoughts of “experts.” Just plain, uncut, as-it-happened history.
When one watches 3 Shots, they’re stepping into another time. They’re not only watching the events of Nov. 22, 1963 unfold, but the chaos that ensues the United States in the following days and years. It’s one of the more unreal films I’ve experienced, and the best documentary I’ve ever seen.
History caught on tape is one of the more enthralling luxuries we have today, and to have such a profound collection of visual history from 1963 is something we should be thankful for. It helps new generations understand the society of a time before their own, and emphasizes how we must learn from our mistakes to keep history from repeating itself.
Part 1
Part 2
The Journalist’s Perspective
One of the reasons we have the powerful images from Nov. 22, 1963, and the days that followed, is because of the journalists present to capture those events and deliver the stories to the public.
To close this commemoration are four interviews I shot this past October. The interviewees are mass communication professionals and educators who reflect on their memories and thoughts regarding the assassination, and discuss how the assassination and other national tragedies play into the role of a journalist.
They currently teach in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas.
“We would like to live as we once lived, but history will not permit it.” – John F. Kennedy, Nov. 22, 1963
As summer draws nearer, we moviegoers start jabbering on about the summer flicks we’re dying to see. The same even goes with pre- and post-summer films, but the point is there’s something out there we all look forward to.
I, for one, am especially looking forward to Days of Future Past. It’s been more than 10 years since Bryan Singer was at the helm of the X-Men film franchise, and I must say it’s a relief to finally have him back. Now, of course, First Class wasn’t a bad film by any means; it was the best X-Men film, in my opinion, since X2 (2002). Plus, Singer was involved with First Class, so there’s that.
I Origins, an independent sci-fi mystery film by Mike Cahill, tells the story of a biologist and his lab partner uncovering significant evidence with the potential to change society. These details are, of course, vague, but what I’ve taken from interviews is the film touches on a man yearning to disprove the existence of God. It stars Michael Pitt, Brit Marling and Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey.
Frame by Frame 