2010 in Film

A brief retrospective of 2010 in film

Funnily enough, I didn’t enjoy 2010 nearly as much as you might think. While my typical sort of people were scarfing down Kick-Ass and Scott Pilgrim and geeking out to new Mass Effect, Fallout, and Assassin’s Creed games, I was mired nostril deep in work and class, only managing to pull myself out of it on rare occasions to indulge in the mediocrity everyone else saw as brilliance. Trust me, I’m not trying to be deliberately counter-counter culture here when I say that I wasn’t particularly enthralled by anything this year.

Sure, there were a tonne of things I liked. But did I love any of it? Honestly, the answer is a resounding “no.”Maybe I’ve simply just been disappointed one too many times. Either that, or I’ve finally become eternally jaded (a prospect in which I find no satisfaction, believe me). Frankly, I think it’s because I’m resolutely grounded more in observer/spectator mode than in a general willingness to indulge and experiment. Very rarely are the things I say and do spontaneous, and thus I’m kept at a distance from pretty much everything. I’m not the sort that goes out in to the world searching for unique experiences and trying new things; I’ve got movies and video games through which to do that vicariously.

So I’m disappointed. What else is new? Well it’s the holiday season, for one thing. In my two weeks off, I’ve been splurging on Steam sales, sleeping in, and generally doing my best to relax. Now more than ever before, largely due to my crack at being an achieving undergraduate student this past semester for once in my life, I appreciate this brief respite of down time before I head into the hell of term work and exam headaches for another 12-16 weeks. It’s a time of rest and reflection, and, ever the imaginary legitimate writer/journalist that I am, the time has come that I take a few moments to jot down my thoughts on another year so remarkably bland.

You may recall that I wrote up a sprawling epic of the state of film in 2009 around this time last year. That… won’t be happening again. Partly out of habitual vegetation, mostly because I wasn’t quite as prolific a cinema patron from July to December as I was from January to June, and thus my impression of half the year is significantly compromised. That’s not going to stop me from doing a generic “Best/Worst __ films of 2010,” however. I have my own personal web space and openly identify myself as somewhere between a critic and a consumer sponge, so I’m pretty much honour bound by the laws of site ownership to do this anyway. So with that in mind, I present to you the best, the worst, and the “meh…”

You’re welcome.

The Worst

Legion: Does anybody remember this film? It was the one where an angel descends from heaven to protect a motley crew of unlikable human beings from becoming victims of the apocalypse in a rustic gas station in the middle of nowhere. If you really don’t remember it, then consider yourself lucky. At the very best, it’s a prime candidate for drinking games centred around laughably awful action/horror movies, and at the very worst, it’ll make you feel physically ill. I distinctly remember watching this movie as the picture of perfect health when it first came out in January, and I left the theatre in a state of partial decay.

Alice in Wonderland: When you take a step back and really, seriously consider the career of Tim Burton, you begin to realize that he’s never actually made a terribly good movie, and that he is mostly lauded for his bizarrely asinine aesthetic and frequent collaborations with Danny Elfman. I suppose you just have to be the sort who gets a kick out of that sort of crap in first place to really enjoy his films. Unfortunately, I’m not that sort, and Alice in Wonderland did not do a damn thing to change my mind. It was dreary, ugly, and miserable, featuring horrendous post-production 3D work and awful plot and acting. If nothing else, Alice in Wonderland should rightly expose Burton for the talentless hack that he is.

Clash of the Titans: Boring, stupid, and ugly. I can’t really say much else, despite the fact my classical education would normally demand I must. Really, this film just isn’t worth the words.

The Losers: Here’s another movie, much like Legion, that I truly doubt anyone really remembers. It’s one cast in the A-Team mould of philanthropic mercenaries having been framed, left for dead, and are now seeking a mixture of justice and redemption with bullets and explosions. Sounds exciting, right? So why is it that The Losers had all the energy and vigour of a dead battery? Every action scene was lifeless lacking a visceral punch, and the movie connecting those moments was every bit as plain and disinterested as the performances of its cast. I can’t think of such a rollicking premise so bland and mishandled as this. Well, except for maybe the A-Team, which suffered from even worse problems.

A Nightmare on Elm Street: A rather late addition to the 80s horror icon reboot train, Freddy Krueger’s reinvention couldn’t have further missed the mark set by the 1984 Wes Craven original. It traded humourous hyberbole for gritty gore in a routine and truly mundane pacing and presentation. Absolutely nothing here worth the time of anyone.

A-Team: So if The Losers was a lifeless and mishandled A-Team, then the A-Team was an inept and stupid version of The Losers. At least the former movie had a semblance of competence, but for the latter, there was seemingly no budget big enough to buy the necessary directorial and screenwriting chops to make this movie worth even a quarter of a damn. And my god, was that final action set piece ever ugly… A harbour strewn with colourful shipping containers looked more like somebody broke a garish Lego structure near the kitchen sink.

Salt: It’s generically generic. I doubt even Tom Cruise in the lead role would’ve fixed that if he didn’t take the time to do Knight & Day, an infinitely better and more enjoyable movie, instead. I can’t remember the last time I was so bored and disengaged with what was sold to me as a high-octane thriller.

Red: I was actually looking forward to this movie. Quite a bit, in fact. I bought into the hype of Helen Mirren with guns just like everyone else did, and I liked the idea of Bruce Willis in a back to basics ass-kicking romp. I liked crazy old John Malkovich doing what he does best, and I liked Mary Louise-Parker being improbably hot for a middle aged woman (46 years old would not be my first guess, let me tell you that). But Red much like many other movies on my bottom list, suffered from the same general listlessness and inept filmmaking/screenwriting combo that can so easily ruin otherwise sure fire successes. Such a shame, really…

The Best


How to Train Your Dragon: Much like Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs last year, I was pleasantly surprised by just how good this non-Pixar project turned out to be. It was fun, creative, clever, gorgeous, and very well made. I don’t normally applaud Dreamworks, but this was a very well done film that managed, in my eyes, to surpass its yearly Pixar rival for the first time ever. Simply delightful.

Knight & Day: This movie is pure fun, plain and simple. I don’t care that Cameron Diaz resembles a charismatic lump of plasticine, and I don’t care that Tom Cruise is bonkers with Scientology. I wouldn’t even care if this film ate one of my legs. This year, there was simply no film as kinetic and entertaining as Knight & Day, and when taken strictly as a reminder of how much fun can be had at the theatres prior to the idiot Hollywood fascination with comic book heroes, it’s so charismatic as to be nearly impossible to hate.

Inception: Chris Nolan is a very good filmmaker, and my week long summer time sojourn exploring just why that is means I have a more thorough appreciation for him than I imagine most folks do (not to sound condescending, but he was a firmly just a cult figure with Memento before someone at Warner Brothers decided to hand him the reigns to the Batman reboot). And while I don’t think Inception is top of the pile in his stellar filmography, it’s still a terrific movie. It’s an inventive and challenging movie full of gun fights and science fiction malarkey. What’s not to love?

The King’s Speech: Even though Colin Firth definitely deserves the best actor Oscar this year, I’m actually looking forward to when he gets snubbed in favour of… oh, I don’t know… somebody who isn’t Colin Firth. The main reason for this is that it means I get to look forward to another immaculate drama by him in 2011, and presumably every year thereafter until he finally wins it.

The King’s Speech isn’t the most unique film, not by any stretch of the imagination. It’s simply a character study of an historic royal figure from a time and place we have some very odd recollections of (England in the 1920s and 1930s, to be precise). But everything about The King’s Speech screams (or should I say stammers?) utter perfection. The performances, the script, the score, the cinematography, every second of it is simply glorious.

The “meh…”

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and Kick-Ass: Being a twenty something who spends most of his free time in front of a monitor/TV screen and who knows far more about web/geek/nerd culture than he would readily admit, these two movies would seem to be right up my alley. The former is drunk on hyper-stylized urban adolescent geek daydreams, and the latter is an ultra violent vigilante caped crusading crime saga. I should be embracing and lauding these films like the rest of the internet, and yet I find myself utterly disenchanted with the concept.

The problem I find is that these films celebrate things that rightly ought not to be celebrated. They’re weapons in this whole “my fandom/sub genre culture trumps your fandom/sub genre culture” war, and this is something I simply want no part of. I already dislike films that presuppose I have a familiarity with their source material, but these two films take that a step further by presupposing that I have some sort of emotional investment or, worse still, an allegiance to the media. A part of me feels sickened. It’s all so cynical, so contrived, so deceptive…a product sold on the anaphoric alliteration of “awesome” and “epic” to an insignificant imaginary microcosm of a market. I’m glad these films tanked. Hopefully it’ll be a slap back to reality.

To be fair, these films aren’t bad, and what I’ve said above does, in retrospect, strike me as being rather harsh. Kick-Ass certainly had its charms, but it was wildly uneven, while Scott Pilgrim was far too fickle, despite the impressive filmmaking. I just don’t like their potential implications. The impact of this pandering to a culturally pop-ironic and regressed generation… that’s my concern.

Toy Story 3: When you get right down to it, this film was pretty unnecessary. After the sublime Wall-E and Up, a sequel felt like a step backwards, and indeed for me that’s exactly what it was. To be certain, Toy Story 3 was as well made and delightful as any other Pixar movie you care to name, but there’s nothing fresh or exciting about it. With it, there’s an air – even a threat, if you will – of stagnation. And the upcoming Cars 2 next year, sequel to a movie many disliked but I personally adored, does little to assuage my fears.

Iron Man 2: The first Iron Man was brilliant, just start to finish excellence. Of course the sequel would fare poorly against it, even if it featured Mickey Rourke with electric whips, Sam Rockwell in a scene stealing sleazy corporate type role, and, lest we forget, Scarlett Johansson in skin tight black leather (and she even has a few lines in Latin, for Christ’s sake!). Frankly, there are three key problems that held it back. The first being the absence of any semblance that this movie could be anywhere near as fresh and invigorating as its predecessor. The second being the change in Lt. Rhodes, both with respect to actor and recharacterization. And finally, the fact that this movie was more interested in setting up whatever the hell The Avengers will be about (which is yet another thing that disgusts me, if I’m honest).

Tron Legacy: The faults of this film are too many to name. In fact, I should probably write up a full review of it in order to best convey them. But for what it’s worth, Tron Legacy is a loud and profoundly stupid movie. The script is simply atrocious and its unbelievable that the narrative as it stands made the final cut. Plot holes, inconsistencies, and idiot logic abound, which are pretty glaring faults for a movie whose predecessor was lauded for its ability to engage and inspire the mind, if nothing else (even back in 1982, however, Tron wasn’t a particularly strong film on its own merits). It’s pretty enough to look at (aside from some botched “young Jeff Bridges” CGI) and Daft Punk do indeed rock the score, which I suppose is barely enough for it to earn a near pass in my book. I can at least recommend it based on its tech if nothing else, but just don’t be surprised if you discover that the film and franchise have been irrevocably lobotomised. In fact, I suppose it’s a good thing that it plays as more of a remake than a sequel, if only because it can be rather effectively distanced from its own legacy.

The verdict

For me, 2010 marked the end of my optimism, which you shouldn’t by any means take to mean that I was a terribly bright-eyed person a scant twelve months ago. At the end of last year, Avatar caused me to believe that it was always possible for films to live up to their expectations, no matter how inflated they may have become. Yet even with modest expectations for the films that piqued my interest in 2010, I nearly consistently left disappointed. It got to a point where I would enter screenings with no enthusiasm, and despite being determined to be open minded, I would leave no happier.

Towards the end of September, a colleague of mine once described me as being “too British,” which I have since taken to mean as being too impartial and too… aloof, if you will. While I’m not immediately British, my mother is, however, Scottish, so I suppose there might be a kernel of truth to his assessment after all. At any rate, he’s right. I am at a distance and generally opposed to the same sort of fervour people, I find, tend to have towards their media consumption. Whether or not that makes be a better critic – a better judge, even – remains to be seen. Perhaps I’ll find out in 2011…

Shortly, god willing, I’ll have a few words to say about video games in 2010. I also intend to elaborate on just why Super Meat Boy is so damn awesome. If you haven’t experienced it already, you should probably go and fix that. Immediately.

EU Film Fest gets the Royal treatment (Article)

Well look who decided to write another article for the newspaper, as opposed to one of the four essays he has due in two weeks? In all seriousness, though, this will very likely be the last thing I have published until the new year (aside from the weekly crossword, obviously). Enjoy.

6th Annual European Union Film Festival showcases at the Royal until November 30

Currently enjoying its sixth year in Toronto, the European Union Film Festival is a cinematic exhibition of the filmmaking talents often under represented in our North American multiplexes. Featuring 22 nationally and internationally acclaimed films from 21 European Union member states, the EU Film Fest aims to celebrate the excellence and diversity of European film.

The largest European centered cinema showcase in the city, the once humble festival now features films from all corners of the European world. From Finland to France, Slovakia to Slovenia, and Poland to Portugal, nearly every part of the EU is well represented by their own aspiring local talents.

In addition to the opportunity for EU member states to proudly display the innovative and exceptional work of their people, festival coordinators have devoted a considerable amount of energy to fostering and developing international cultural dialogues. More than just free screenings of fantastic foreign films, viewers and volunteers end up working together both to support emerging European filmmakers and to grant further exposure to those who have already been firmly established.

Photobucket

With a great deal of this year’s festival already behind us, there are still two highly anticipated films for prospective audiences to look forward to, as well as what promises to be an intriguing Human Rights discussion, organized by the Goethe-Institut and featuring UofT’s own Mark Kingwell.

The panel entitled “Human Rights in Europe: A Still Open Discussion?” will take place on Saturday November 27 at 4:30 pm. Human Rights activist and legal expert Mirja Trilsch, who worked at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague, will examine contemporary issues surrounding women’s rights and crimes against humanity. Professor Mark Kingwell will also be on hand to offer a cultural and philosophical perspective.

Scheduled for Monday November 29 at 6:00 pm, the Romanian feature The Rest is Silence (Restul e tacere) is a partly true story of an ambitious director and a business mogul who hope to bring Romania’s 1877 Independence War to the silver screen in 1911. Directed by Nicoale Caranfil, The Rest is Silence was honoured with Best Editing and Best Sound awards at the 2009 Locarno Film Festival in Switzerland.

The last day of the festival, Tuesday November 30, screens the Spanish film Hèctor, which tells the story of sixteen-year-old Hèctor who is faced with a life changing decision. When his mother dies and he is sent to live with an aunt in a tiny apartment on the fringes of Madrid, Hèctor’s long lost father, Martín, reappears and offers him a new life in Mexico. Directed by Gracia Querejeta, Hèctor has received numerous awards since its 2004 debut, including Best Movie and Best Actress from the 2004 Málaga Film Festival, as well as medals from the Cinematographic Writers Society including Best Movie, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Director.

This year’s European Union Film Festival began on November 18 and spans until November 30. All events and screenings take place at The Royal, located on 608 College St. West, and are completely free of charge. Tickets are available to everyone on a first-come, first-served basis.

Arts! Ability! Access! (Article)

It’s been a while since I’ve done a proper article, hasn’t it? Interestingly enough, it’s also been a while since I’ve had a decent moment to myself that wasn’t mired in panic and worrying about all the things I should be doing.  I wonder if those two facts are somehow related…

At any rate, enjoy an arts event preview. At the time of posting, you’ll have roughly four and a half hours to decide if it’ll do you any good.

Oh yes… before I forget, make sure to visit www.thenewspaper.ca constantly. Vote on the poll (every day, if possible), click on the ads, comment on the articles, etc. The new issue will go up sometime tonight once I have all the articles formatted and edited, and I’m still working on  convincing the other writers to invest in creating web only content.

Arts! Ability! Access!

Being a group that is typically under represented, under served, and virtually absent in the world of the arts, people diagnosed with developmental and intellectual disabilities generally have a tough time when it comes to artistic expression. Such a fact has not gone unnoticed by Keys to the Studio, an initiative focused on creating and promoting music from those with disabilities, who have worked together with Hart House to create Arts! Ability! Access!, an evening of events in support of artistic expression.

Arts! Ability! Access! is intended to re-imagine how we view arts and disability,” says Zoe Dille, Program Coordinator at Hart House. “It demonstrates Hart House’s commitment to working in partnership and within a collaborative framework to create events that are accessible, educational and socially responsible.” The events’ focus on accessibility “really enlivens Hart House’s new vision as a ‘living laboratory of social, artistic, cultural and recreational experiences,” says Dille, “where all voices, rhythms and traditions converge.’”

Photobucket

The events kick off with the screening of an Academy Award nominated, animated short documentary entitled Tying Your Own Shoes, directed by Shira Avni, which explores the lives of four adult artists living with Down Syndrome. Following the film is a conversation on access to artistic expression with Avni herself, as well as actor Jason Melville of Dramaways, dancer Rebecca Till from Spirit Movers, and artist Petra Tolley, one of the subjects of Avni’s film. Moderated by U of T PhD student and Disability Studies TA, Anne McGuire, the panel is set to examine the impact of the “disability” label on artists and their work.

After the discussion, guests are encouraged to explore the Unlocking Minds exhibit located in Hart House’s Main Hallway, which includes visual art by Lance Brown, André Oliveira, and Risa Sie. Finally, everyone is invited down to the Arbor Room for a Keys to the Studio concert, which features group and solo performances of original music from people diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities in collaboration with professional musicians.

Arts! Ability! Access! is jointly presented by Keys to the Studio, New College Service Learning, Equity Studies and its Student Union, Students for Barrier-free Access, Accessibility Studies, Coffee Shed, and the Common Ground Coop. All events take place on November 18 at Hart House, and the Unlocking Minds exhibit will be displayed until November 20.

Google’s Instant Headache (Article)

Preamble: This is strictly an opinion piece. I can sort of understand why they would encourage me to write it, but I have no idea why they would consider publishing it. At any rate, this can be found in tomorrow’s issue (October 21, 2010), and on The Newspaper‘s website very soon. I can say this with confidence because the proverbial keys to that website have been handed over to me, and thus I’ll be updating it every Wednesday night/Thursday morning to go along with each issue as it’s released.
.
Depending on what happens, The Newspaper‘s website may also be a lot more active in the coming weeks/months beyond just having the printed material published online. This is mainly in regards to editor blogs and web only content, but rumours of a podcast have been buzzing around as well. It all sounds well and good, but while we may be ambitious folk, we don’t have a particularly brilliant follow-through. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what happens. But enough of all that…
.
Google’s Instant Headache
.
You may have noticed something peculiar about the world’s most charming and iconic search engine recently. You may have noticed that particular tool, once so humble and patient, has turned into an overbearing tyrant, telling you what you want before you’re even able to know such a thing for yourself. In short, you may have noticed Google Instant.

Trumpeted by those Silicon Valley boffins as the most efficient thing since slave labour, Google Instant aims to revolutionise the way information is obtained online not only by providing auto-complete suggestions, but also by performing the searches as you type. So, for example, Google will spit out pages about Canadian Tire, Costco, and Cougar, and make seven more failed attempts to predict my query, before it realizes that I’m actually looking for “Countdown to Ecstasy,” the classic Steely Dan album. I applaud the effort, Google, but I liked you better when you were a patient retriever and not an incessant yappy bastard.

Google has always been designed for speedy simplicity, but now it’s being aimed at the sluggish simpleminded, as if it doesn’t even trust its users to know what they want from it. In the official unveiling video, there’s a particular quip, spoken by an elderly man who’s aghast at how he “didn’t have to press enter” while using Google Instant, which strikes a bit off. Apparently, if you eliminate that pesky little keystroke, the population of geriatric web-surfers skyrockets. And what does that do for general productivity, you ask? Well did you know that Google Instant reduces average search time by anywhere from two to five seconds? Why, with all that new found time, I can finally finish that masterpiece I’ve been writing.

Above all else, Google Instant is one of those grandiose innovations that exists mainly to gratify itself. Any claims to increased efficiently are nullified when such time will be inevitably squandered refreshing manic Twitter feeds or wandering through Facebook. Not to mention that the weaponization of online queries can hardly be seen as an improvement. Is assaulting users with spastic stabs of haphazardly guessed information really something to be proud of? Somehow, I doubt that this is what web searches have been desperately lacking for all these years.

Inner Voices (Article)


Inner Voices
.
It used to be that talking to yourself was a sign of craziness, but now it turns out that it might just be a rather healthy practice. New research from UTSC, headed by PhD candidate Alexa Tullet and Associate Psychology Professor Michael Inzlicht, is demonstrating how using “inner voices” can lead to better self-control.

“We essentially had participants complete a classic self-control exercise – the Go/No-Go task – while we attempted to block their inner voice,” explains Alexa Tullet. “During the Go/No-Go task, participants saw symbols that indicated that they should either press a button or refrain from pressing the button. The “Go” (press) trials were more common than the “No-Go” (don’t press) trials, so the impulsive response became pressing the button.”

Subjects had the luxury of using their “inner voice” during these trials, as they were only focused on a single simple exercise free of distractions. “To block the inner voice, we had people complete the Go/No-Go task while they repeatedly said the word “computer,” thereby preventing them from talking to themselves in their heads,” continues Alexa. “As a control, we had participants do the Go/No-Go task a second time, but this time they repeatedly drew circles.”

“Drawing circles was also distracting – like saying the word “computer” repeatedly – but does not occupy the inner voice. What we found was that occupying the inner voice caused people to act more impulsively – to press the button more – relative to the control condition.”

It would seem that the average mind is only able to use one voice, either the “inner” or “outer” one, effectively at a time. When the internal monologue is interrupted with external dialogue, full control over the words and and actions of that person are compromised.

“Situations where we are constantly talking make it difficult or impossible to use the inner voice, and may have consequences for our self-control as a result,” concluded Alexa. “Being at a dinner party, for example, might result in us eating much more food (or drinking much more alcohol) than we would have if we were monitoring our actions.”