Sunday, January 29, 2017

Under the Music: How a Young Thug Music Video Perfectly Defines the Art Movement of Today


The Wyclef Jean music video by Young Thug is a postmodernist masterpiece. I know that sounds really stupid when I'm talking about someone like Young Thug. And I know it sounds stupid that I'm analyzing a 2017 Rap video for any bearing on the art movement that defines today. Believe me, these are words I never thought I would say. But trust me, I think these are really important thoughts to have, and I TRULY believe that this video perfectly defines what postmodernism is in 2017. So I am going to break down the music video bit by bit and say something about why each part plays a crucial role in this thesis. 

Let me start by providing some context. In order to understand what postmodernism art is, you need to understand what modernism is. (I'm gonna cite Wikipedia cuz that shit's credible now okay?) The Wikipedia definition of modernism is: a philosophical movement that, along with cultural trends and changes, arose from wide-scale and far-reaching transformations in Western society during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Basically, because of the cynicism and Earth shattering emotions that the war brought, it encouraged people to think outside the box and start producing more experimental and unique forms of art and literature. Granted, they didn't know what the response would be. All of the work was genuine but experimental. When all this new art came out and it was well received by the public, people started thinking "hey, why don't we just ALWAYS break conventions?" This is where postmodernism comes in. The Wikipedia definition of postmodernism is: a late-20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism that represents a departure from modernism and has at its heart a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as well as a problematical relationship with any notion of “art.” A lot of people like to describe postmodernism by simply doing air quotations. I like to describe it as a constant self-awareness. People are now able to take art, analyze and commentate on it, and then reproduce it as art as itself. Some even believe we've ascended into a new form of art, a post-postmodernism if you will. I won't call it anything else yet as it is early, however. A popular movement in all of art right now is to be Meta. 21 Jump Street is an easy example of this. The whole movie operates on a complete self-aware basis. And that was really fresh and new to audiences when they first saw it. It's all about riding the waves of the present art movements. 

So that brings us back to Thug. Alright time to break down the video. Go ahead and give it a watch for yourself.



You can probably already see where I'm going with this. But I'd like to break it down into eighteen different moments and talk about why each of them are important and brilliant. I know it may seem a little long and convoluted (I'm gonna use the words "self-aware" a lot), but bear with me, as I learned a lot about not only the video, but what makes us as a society gravitate towards videos and content like this in general.

1. The director of the video introduces himself, is talking to us ONLY through text cuts: Even though the director isn't lying or falsifying information by telling us who he is, he is establishing himself as a character inadvertently. By having his identity be true, we suspend any sort of disconnect between this being fiction and fact.

2. He's doing everything very "literally": Everything he's doing in the video is fairly literal for the most part. We see this by starting up the video and having him click the MP3 file of the song along with a .png text of the video title with that tile background. This adds the illusion that the video was sort of hastily thrown together with minimal content to work with, a bit of a passive aggressive tone to express frustration, and of course for that self-aware statement.

3. He visually follows the instructions Thug lays out in separate prerecorded audio:  This is just a great story telling technique that keeps the eyes and the mind very engaged. He's following Thug's stupid requests and as Thug "stream of consciousness-s" his idea for the video, this video we're watching matches it exactly. EXCEPT for Thug showing up. This is to show that the director is still a professional who does exactly what he's told because he was hired, and that helps highlight the fact that Thug was not there to do his job.

4. Young Thug didn't show, so they had to improvise: this is the fulcrum of this entire video. If Young Thug had shown up on time, this video that we're currently watching wouldn't exist. It was a beautiful mistake. I'll elaborate more on this at the end of the article. 

5. Director puts in footage Thug sent in much later with a smaller aspect ratio; roasts thug: Some more shade from the director, as the small aspect ratio with relation to the regular video shows disrespect and expresses frustration. The jokes are the cherry on top. It's reinforcing us to side with the director, but also puts us in a subtle position not to hate on Thug as much because the director is doing it for us.

6. Director then explains where the video falls apart: This is where the videos main concept begins to set in motion. This is the storyline we're meant to follow. How it's told though made a huge difference.

7. " Juxtaposition" in that amazing font: Another bit of self-aware, sarcastic humor, as the director is playing a recording of some more of Thug's requests for the video. Without words we can tell that the director is condescendingly mocking Thug for using a word which people use so often now a days to make their videos look and more artistic. Obviously this video did not call for any sort of Juxtaposition.

8. "It even feels like a real video": The director uses misdirection to help immerse us in the mindset that this went so wrong and everything was awry. But the thing is, this is a real video, and for all intensive purposes, this is what was supposed to happen based on the concept of the video. 

9. Director points out that bat props are fake: This is done to highlight more mistakes and issues that went along with the video. Not only does it tie up anything that would seem off or wrong about the video, but it further pushes the narrative that so much went wrong and was off about this entire shoot. This was very deliberate.

10. Director points out the magic of editing: This is a way for the director to point out a very underappreciated job. In this day and age of postmodernism, jobs in movies and music that are normally neglected and not talked about are beginning to become more revered and appreciated. In turn, people begin to develop new appreciation for the medium. 

11. Director points out cops and tells us to remember them because they'll be back: The director is in control of the story, and it's highlighted with him telling us what to do in respect to said story. By us fixating on the fact that the cops will be back, we start to wonder and make up our own scenarios in our head about what will happen. The end result is pretty insignificant, but having us remember the policeman is important.

12. Points out how he'd fix red bathing suit in post (production), does a half-assed job: Again, this is a way for the director to convey his frustration and passive aggression towards Thug without using a single word. An eye-for-an eye-type move on his end.

13. Talks about how Thug wants to keep it cleaner for impressionable kids, then perfectly points out explicit lyrics in real time:  This is just one of my favorite parts of the whole video. The timing on this had to be perfect and we as a viewer have no idea its coming because the song is playing the whole time in the background, but we're more focused on the story. In this moment he pulls us out of the narrative and back onto the song, but only to point it out in such a negative light. God I love this video.

14. "Perhaps commenters will guess what it was": The director is now directly addressing us, and challenging us to interact and engage with the video. This isn't the first time someone has done this but its a real clever way to generate engagement on a video without directly asking for it. It also gives us a role in the video, making it even more intimate.

15. Director explains the rest of the story: This one is similar to point number 6, but we have callbacks from the beginning of the video, including those cops he was telling us about. Everything about the story sort of ties up here, now it's time to wrap up the video.

16. "Moral of the story: none of this matters": Okay so nihilism as a state of mind is kind of coming back into pop culture in a very angsty-why-does-my-life-suck-teenage way. He's playing into a very popular and up in coming mindset of today. I also believe this mindset plays into today's postmodernism because being self-aware has an element of "none of this matters" to it anyways. But the funny thing is, this does matter, because we're watching it. It also matters because he made it, even though he didn't have to. He clearly wanted to, but is playing it off as such a burden. Trust me director guy, it definitely matters.

17. "But you're still watching and the song ended so I guess it worked": See I told you it matters. He got everyone watching to sit through a song, while doing everything in his power and using all the tools his medium provides him to detract from the song and Thug's overall image. Selective attention at its best, this video worked on every level.

18. Director comments on the post credit logos: This is to fully keep up the image of him commentating on everything and being so "self-aware." Consistency and continuity. That's what the whole video and postmodernism is really all about. 

Phew, okay that was a lot I know, but hopefully you can now see from my point of view on the whole thing. And maybe you've even gained some insight about our present day art movement and what type of content is really working with us now a days. It plays into the internet and all the readily available information, the culture behind it (memes and things), as well as its overall attitude and ambiance. I think this was a true story in the video, and if so, I would like to draw a comparison to one of my favorite all time movies Jaws.  That movie was supposed to have the shark prominently filmed from all angles and perspectives. But the animatronic shark kept malfunctioning and director Steven Spielberg had to call some last minute audibles to make his movie work. He thought the best way to work around the issue was to film from the sharks POV for the majority of the movie. This was the best thing that could have happened for the film because it added mountains of suspense and tension. That was a beautiful mistake. This video is no different. What was originally supposed to be Thug's vision fell apart at the hands of Thug himself. The director had to make lemonade with some bad lemons. And boy did he find the perfect solution. I can't praise this video enough. What's even more amazing is no one is calling for Thug's head or brandishing him as a huge asshole. It's sort of implied, but I think it endearingly adds to Young Thug's charm. Props to his team for allowing the video to be released in it's present state because I really think it helped a lot with his image. For a video to rip on the artist that hard with some very valid reasoning only to help his overall image is nothing short of a masterwork in my opinion. And like I said before, it perfectly plays into our culture of not only living on the internet, but the hip hop culture as well. The genre is blowing up and taking over a lot of different lifestyles. And I think this video bridges the gap for some who were hesitant to hop aboard that train. 

So thank you for taking the time to read this very in depth analysis on a Young Thug music video. I learned a lot about the culture of today writing this, and I can only hope the same for you. Please fix and flesh this part Future Nick I trust you can close it out bang bang skeet skeet.



(That was postmodernism joke, just making sure we're on the same page).


Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Silence Review


Vocab Bank: 
Realista filmmaker whose style is characterized by the representation of people or things as they actually are
Formalist -  a filmmaker who is focused on the formal, or technical, elements of a film: i.e., the lighting, scoring, sound and set design, use of color, shot composition, and editing. 

Realist movies are probably my least favorite type of film. I'm not sure what it is about them, but I think they rely a little too much on the story and not enough on the medium that film provides them. In many cases, they're just straightforward documentations of characters going through an entire arc or linear storyline. It's why I think that biopics that have no formalist elements often times end up being bland and forgettable oscar bait (I'm looking at you Theory of Everything you loud piece of shit). It's also why I've said Martin Scorsese is a master of biopics. Every single one he's made has some formalist or artistic element that sets them apart from other films. Wolf of Wall Street made Wall Street colorful and interesting because of how fast-paced and disjointed the story was presented. Aviator changed its aesthetics as the film went on to highlight the passage of time whilst matching the filming styles of its respective time. Raging Bull, well, is Raging Bull. You get the point, Martin is really good at what he does. So when I found out that he was doing a film on Portuguese priests spreading their religion through feudal Japan, I was a little skeptical. When I found out it was going to be a predominantly realist film I got very, very skeptical. But I trust him and his ability to tell a good story. And in the end I can say, this is about as well as anyone can make a realist film. (note: there are formalist elements here such as narration and flashbacks, but are so few and spread out that it doesn't affect the overall style of the film).

Silence follows two Portuguese priests played by Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver who are tasked to set out to Japan to find their missing mentor who originally went there to convert Japanese peasants to Christianity. The priest, played by Liam Neeson, is now rumored to have apotheosized or denounced his own religion. From the moment they enter Japan, they find out it's a very brutal and unforgiving place where your religious preference could mean your life. So right off the bat, this is a very long and very arduous movie. The run time clocks in just under three hours, and it really feels like it. Initially, I found myself thinking that this movie really dragged towards the end and really should have wrapped up a lot sooner. But as I sat and thought about it, I think this was a very deliberate choice. We're supposed to suffer and struggle along with our main character. He's basically put on a trial that slowly breaks him down as a man and crushes everything he believes in. Any shots that hang for too long, or scenes that seem to be excessive are all purposeful to make us feel uncomfortable towards the situation. I kind of like that a lot, as there's no real other way to empathize with the characters other than to show their suffering as much as possible. The acting is pretty solid here, for the most part. Andrew Garfield is obviously the star here, but no one gave an extraordinary performance in my opinion. I think that had to do with the fact that the Portuguese priests were speaking in English, but everyone in the film was acknowledging it as Portuguese. Which I get it, it's a nice workaround to make it more realistic, but it is a little glaring that all other languages are spoken authentically.

One thing I really love here is actually the costume and set design. Everyone is wearing authentic period-accurate clothing, and none of it seemed like movie costumes. I really did feel like I was in ancient Japan because of how well it was shot, like this eerily spacious swamp island that is filled with people ready to kill at any moment. That sort of emersion is key when you as an audience member are asked to run this gauntlet with Andrew Garfield. There's also a deliberate restraint from music. This actually goes along with the theme and even the title of the film, Silence. Silence being what you hear when you pray to God when you're most desperate. What all these people are hearing right before they're killed by feudal lords. It's the ultimate test of faith. Do you think there's an omnipotent being listening? Does he think you're worth responding to? That's for you to decide, and that's the notion that's tested on these Christian priests. Camera work here is solid as well, but I have to say it's probably Scorses's least notable effort.

Something else I really loved was the portrayal of the Japanese people in the film. Those who wanted to be, or called themselves Christian were doing it for really interesting reasons. They were dedicating themselves to this religion because of what the white men were promising them this religion would offer. In that sense, it becomes less of a religion for them and more of a drug. They were searching for any sort of salvation, any validation to help them push through the difficulties they face in their everyday lives. They were loyal and determined, yes, but it was all in the pursuit of a salvation loosely promised to them. And the Japanese lords. They are touted to be these extremely dangerous and ruthless killers who will offer no mercy to those who chose to follow Christianity. And they are, but not really at the same time. They are brutal make no mistake about that. They kill senselessly and offer some of the most intense torture to their own people. But they only so inhumanely kill their own people to make an example out of them. When it comes to Andrew Garfield's character, all they want out of him is to renounce the religion. They knew that Japanese Christians would see him renounce it and follow by example. That's all they want, and they even tell him, "just apotheosize you don't have to really mean it." They don't want to hurt good people, they just have to do it to maintain their control. And as a result, they put him in a terrible position to break down everything he believes in.

So that's Silence, a movie that grows on me the longer I think about it. I'm not sure this is one I'll be watching many more times in the future, but I really appreciate it for what it is. This film is also riddled with details of motifs all throughout the story. Pay attention to the character of Kichichiro and what his motives represent about a disingenuous religious follower. Overall, I'm glad I saw this film and I think anyone interested in ancient Japan or religious persecution should definitely give this film a look lol. 8.5/10

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Under the Music: How Migos' Quavo Mastered the Ad-Lib


Rap music is at an all time cultural high. From the clothes we wear, to the icons we follow, to the songs on the top of the charts, all of it is owned by hip hop and rap these days. What started off as a small experiment in a Bronx party back in the 70s has evolved into a fully fleshed out way of living of its own. How the genre has grown from simple beats, to more creative flows, to a nice blend of high production and skillful lyricism (or "spitting") is such a fascinating evolution to observe. One of the more unique aspects of rap that has developed over the years is the "ad-lib. An ad-lib in rap is a word or sound uttered by the MC or producer that's sort of like a calling card. What's really unique about this is that it's uttered on the beat, so even though it's a jarring switch from the lyrics, it fits right in when it's heard (ex: Travis Scott's Straight Up!). From Rick Ross's belly grunt to Metro Boomin's iconic song identifier (He don't trust you), a lot of these ad-lib's have grown from fun identifiers, to full on brands. But there is one rapper in particular who I believe uses the ad-lib to it's fullest potential on any given song. See, Atlanta rapper Quavo, from the hip hop group Migos, has developed his ad-libs beyond being part of his brand. His ad-libs make up and are essential to his songs.

Now you might be thinking, well of course Quavo uses ad-libs, I hear them all the time. His aren't even the most iconic or most used by general hip-hop fans. That may be true on the exterior, but take a closer look to some of his music. If you listen closely, almost the entire song is filled with his voice, and any empty space he uses to breath or pause is supplemented by an ad-lib. I never noticed this until a friend of mine pointed it out, and it blew my mind. There was always something special about Quavo to me and I could never quite put my finger on it until now.

Now why is this important? Well first I'd like to link an awesome video by Vox on Kanye West and how his voice pushes the envelope on all of his music.


The key here is that the voice can be manipulated in ways to make it sound like the most unique and pleasing sounds that instruments couldn't normally produce. It adds texture, depth, and even a more personal connection with the song. Devil in a New Dress is my favorite example of this, the main "instrument" for the beat is a voice. Initially it's hard to pinpoint what exactly it is but there's just something about that beat that seems so different and piercing, and it what it really is is that voice (and that Mike Dean guitar solo hrnng). Now let's a look at typical "Atlanta Rap" song beat. 





As you can see (or hear), the beat is fairly bouncy and carries you throughout the songs, and the rap itself is sort of riding the beat like a surfer rides a wave. But you can also see how spacey and shallow the beat itself can be, and all the rapping can't cover that up. This is where Quavo's ad-libs come into play. Let's take a look at one of my favorite Quavo song's which actually isn't his, Oh My Dis Side by Travis Scott. Listen to the song first without too much in mind.


Okay so what did you hear? Well I'm sure you noticed a plethora of ad-libs sprinkled through out the song, just off of the fact that I'm telling you Quavo has mastered the ad-libs. But take a listen to the song a second time. And this time, actively seek out and count on your fingers how many times Quavo (bubblier voice) utters a sound or a word that isn't a verse. If you lost count don't worry, there are literally too many to keep on two pairs of hand let alone one. Quavo leaves absolutely zero space for voices in the song. Where Travis takes a breath on a verse and you expect to hear nothing, Quavo comes in and fills the void in the most satisfying way. It makes the song carry and flow more succinctly. And it adds energy and presence that wouldn't otherwise be there. This is profound too, because when the song switches up the beat half way, Quavo doesn't slow down and he also doesn't keep the same vibe. He matches and appropriates the exact feeling and sound that matches what Travis is rapping about. If he was doing it along the lines of the first half of the song, it wouldn't work. But Quavo analyzes the beat, and appropriately choses what to say and what not to say and when to say it all. Phenomenal! And finally when his full verse comes it at the end, the song really comes to a head. My favorite thing about this is weather he knows it or not, Quavo uses selective attention to disguise some of his "texture" ad-libs. There are the ad-libs that are a lot punchier and more memorable from the song, and it distracts you from the more subtle and understated ad libs that basically hide in plain sight. And that's why the song feels extra melodic and alive. How Quavo was able to basically hide his voice plainly is a song is nothing short of outstanding to me. What I want to highlight about all of this is that it takes a lot of developed music sense and theory to understand where to place these noises and how it should sound. Quavo really knows his stuff, and to write him off as an ATL mumble rapper who has nothing to say really isn't fair to the amount of attention to detail he gives to his music. A lot of rappers these days send their beats to artists they wanted featured on it, and the artist sends it back with their verse. In these cases, artists are never in the studio together for the same song. But here, you can tell Travis Scott and Quavo were in the studio the whole time together, and really spent a lot of time perfecting this song to be exactly what they wanted. It is my favorite Quavo feature ever, and to me best highlights his brilliance of pushing the envelope of the genre.

Now of you go into any Migos songs, you can see that they too are riddled with ad-libs. 
While I don't want to take away credit from the group as a whole, I believe Quavo is the one who stresses the importance of these ad-libs to the group for all their songs. It is his features that still carry them beyond the group. But this is the ad-lib used to its maximum potential. What was once seen as a silly one trick pony to some, has been taken, and realized as a genuine sonic tool. Quavo has really found something that can put him and his group ahead of the rest of the pack. Rap music as a whole is sort of at a spear head right now. So it will be interesting to see where this is all taken in 2017 and beyond. But the first place I'll be looking is the new Migos album which drops January 27th. Bad and Boujee is already number one in the world on the Billboard top 100, people are starting to recognize that there's something here. Rap can seem goofy and extra a lot of times, but all of it has been important on capturing and executing a vibe and emotion that all music is capable of at its purest form. It's understanding music theory a lot more, and it's understanding what we as an audience enjoy in a song. This ad-lib mastering is important, like the movie Jaws is important. What should have been a corny gimmick was taken and executed on the utmost professional level to become something that changes the game. And I'm so excited to see what music's follow up to the ad-lib is.

Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Moonlight Review


(please excuse changing fonts, this blog is glitchy) So turns out there's actually another pretty amazing movie out of 2016. Guess that's what I get for making impulsive blanket statements, but hey, social media!! Anyways, I had heard a lot of buzz behind this movie Moonlight right around the end of the summer, and how this was one of those for sure Best Picture nomination type films. I didn't know too much about it other than that it was a life anthology movie and that it had something to do with growing up in impoverish conditions. I also heard other little things like that it involved race and homosexuality, but I didn't read much more into it. I'm not sure why exactly it took me as long as it did to watch this film. Maybe it had to do with the year, or maybe I was just assuming it was an Oscar bait type film that would over compensate its message, but whatever it was I slept on this movie hard. And I really wish I hadn't.

Moonlight is the first full-length feature directed by newcomer Barry Jenkins and revolves around the life of the lost and confused Chiron, a boy who lives in very poor conditions with his crack addict single mother in an underdeveloped area of South Florida. The movie follows him throughout his life in 3 separate acts, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. That's about all I can really say without giving too much away. This is one of those "the less you know the better" kind of films. And that's not because it's so narrative driven, actually it's opposites. The narrative itself is pretty light, and sparse between the events. That may sound like a fault, but the direct storyline isn't the heavy hitter of the film here. It's all the subtext and the details myyyyy faaavvvorrriteeeeee :-}.  So the less of an idea you have of the story, the better I think you will have at forming your own thoughts and conclusions about this. I'll say the things I like about it that don't involve spoilers in the next paragraph, but other than that, expect spoilers throughout the rest of the review.

So the acting here is pretty flawless. I don't know if anyone really stands out as being better than their counterpart because everything here was just sort of executed perfectly. All actors who play Chiron during their respective ages do a fantastic part of making sure the mannerisms and essence of the character are carried on and honored with each new age. They then also bring something new to the table each time, as Chiron is growing up and still developing. Everything about him makes sense and the character is very consistent throughout the film. Small nuance, but I don't think it would have been as amazing without it. The supporting cast are no slouches either, as each character delivers an incredibly raw and genuine performance at any given time. Special shout out to Janelle Monae who is mainly known for her musical career; she really held her own with the rest of these stellar actors. Next, there's the lighting and camera work. I'll get into a little more detail as they involve spoilers but what I can say is they too are flawless. I don't think I've seen a cleaner shot movie in terms of it' lighting vs. camera work, it was unreal. I could tell an insane amount of effort went into framing each and every shot. None of it was filler. And finally, the pacing is pretty great too. No one section outlasts the other. I commended My Golden Days for having staggered pacing when it came to the different ages because I believed it actively represented how we remember periods of our life, but here, having the equal amount of time in each period better represented the theme of the movie, and I was actually glad they felt balanced. Alright, that's about all I can say without spoilers so go see this movie now if any of this sounds remotely interesting to you. I promise this will get a best picture nomination so if anything it'll knock it off your list!

[SPOILERS] Man okay where to start. I guess with the main overall theme. So this movie was all about identity. But it's not necessarily about like the unique quirks of an interesting person. It's more along the lines of identity in every sense of an identity (what?). This involves environmental identity, sexual identity, aesthetic identity, what-kind-of-person-you-want-to-be identity. This is such a powerful theme because I don't think it's been explored at the depth that this movie takes it. And in a world where you have the least amount of restrictions in human history with regards to how you want to identify yourself, I think this could not have come out at a more relevant time. It shows how you are shaped by the people around you, how your home plays into your social, how your heroes impact your life years and years later, and how one little moment can stay with you and possess you for far longer than it should have. These are all ideas discussed and tackled in the film. And the way it's shot and presented accentuates all of that as much as it possibly can. First of all the film is shot using a lot of centered close-ups on characters, especially Chiron. Not only is this a super intimate type of shot, but it also of exposes the character as a whole. That is who they are on the exterior; they can't hide it from who they interact with, or us as the audience. There are also a whole lot of shots that follow Chiron from behind, centered similarly, only we just see the back of his head. That to me said that we don't know who he is yet fully, and maybe he doesn't yet either. And that leaves us a bit dejected from him even though it's literally the exact opposite of the first shot I described. Beyond the characters, everything was framed so beautifully. This one gives La La Land a little run for its money, as all the good shots in that film are basically a minimum type of shot for Moonlight. Like everything is perfectly centered and symmetric.  It's so visually pleasing you can't take your eyes off it. 

Then there was the lighting. My god I don't even know. It could have been the lenses, it could have been masterfully set up lights, it could have been some post production. Whatever they did was 10/10. Lighting is so important and often overlooked in films. As I always bring up, good lighting, in for example something like a noir, is part of the story, it plays into the theme. Well similarly here the lighting goes straight into the theme. One of the characters at the beginning was telling Chiron that back when he lived in Cuba people there would call him Blue because when the moonlight shined off him it would make him look blue. When Chiron asked him if that's who he was he replied, "I was who ever I wanted to be" (I'm paraphrasing). Well wouldn't you now it there are a lot of blue things in this film. The color palate has a big emphasis on blue. There are props and blatant outfits that are blue. But the lighting. The lighting that is often on Chiron makes him look blue in the exact moments the film intends him to be. This to me means two things. One: the people he's interacting with see him as something he's not. He's either putting up a facade (more so when his clothes are actually blue), or people don't truly understand him or his situation. My best example of this is that all three sections of the movie are titled a name that was given to him by someone else. Two: the moments when he is blue are the moments he is most struggling with his identity. See, blue with respect to Chiron comes from the ocean in the film, and the ocean is seen as his safe space. All three sections in the film lead back to that ocean in some way. He wanted to emulate and project the feelings and emotions he felt there into his own identity. And to me that's super profound. It makes you think about your own identity and what makes you truly you. What things from your life do you carry and try and replicate from a day-to-day basis? How do you find your ocean, and how do you make that your identity? Throughout the film you find out that it kind of finds you one way or another. 

The last thing I wanted to talk about was what the film exceeded my expectations in. I stupidly thought this movie was going to get bogged down by over compensating its message on poverty and sexuality. Not that there's anything wrong with it or that I find a ton of issue with that, but to me, emersion in a film is the most important thing and when a movie goes too hard on it's message sometimes it can bring you out of it (I know, what a fucking complaint Nick). BUT this movie does what I wish every movie did. Say it with me: Show, Don't Tell. Never at any point in the movie did a character say “life's so hard here,” or the hood is so rough, or “we gotta get out of here.” We see it ourselves. We don't need the movie to tell us that life in impoverish areas are hard, we see how hard it is! And in a very organic and genuine way might I say. When it came to Chiron’s struggle with his sexuality, we could see him struggling it over his in thoughts. His actions help you understand his mindset a little bit better every time. But he never says, "I'm gay" or asks for help on exploring his thoughts (other than that half second question). He literally has to handle it on his own and it's like we're trapped in his mind with him. When he has his sexual moments, the camera holds long shots on him in action. It forces us to look and observe his actions. This helps break the ice and truly put us in the shoes of this person and in a possibly unfamiliar situation. I can't commend this film enough on those decisions, because without it I wouldn't have nearly praised this film as much nor written all of these words about it. [END SPOILERS]



So that’s Moonlight, a movie that I believe has truly met the appropriate critical reception it's received. I certainly am not the only one who feels this way about the movie. Films like these are really truly why I write these posts. They're exciting, satisfying, and inspiring. I didn't even get to talk about all the side characters and how they all play into Chiron’s theme and motif of the film. Perhaps you've already noticed them! Now, is this a better movie than La La Land? Hard to say, as they are two different films which both executed flawlessly their subject matter. I think I would have to say that Moonlight is a more technically (as in the techniques used) flawless film, but it's not my favorite over LLL due to a less "weighty" story. That shouldn't mean too much though as both these movies are arguably interchangeable with me. Go see this movie please, films like this need more than critical support. Do yourself a favor and don't wait until it's on TV in a year or two, go see it in theatres, it really deserves it. 9.5/10

Friday, December 23, 2016

La La Land Review


2016 has probably been the worst year in recent memory. This isn't a new or groundbreaking statement, but there are times where I don't think it can be said enough. But man, movies, in particular, have been a special kind of bad this year. The kind of bad where there are almost literally no memorable movies to show for itself. Tired sequels, head scratching reboots, and just the most vanilla, Toyota Camry, Ph value 7 lineups of films you can find. It was so bad that it kept me out of the theaters for the longest stretch of time I think in my life. I just couldn't even pretend to like what I was seeing. So that's why this review of La La Land is almost unfair. A movie 1/17 as good as this one would have received high praise from me just because of what it was up against this year. So when I say that this is one of the best movies I've seen since Her and Whiplash (2014), I can't tell if that's because it's actually that good, or I'm just so malnourished from all this poo poo. I have to let this one breathe a little before I start making blanket statements, but here's what I can objectively say was amazing about this movie.

La La Land is the third feature directed by Damien Chazelle. He's known for directing movies that center around music, most notably Whiplash, a movie which is in my top 3 movies of the decade so far. This film is his first fully fledged musical, as characters break out into song and dance at a given time. The movie follows around two characters, Mia (played by Emma Stone) an actress looking to make her big break, and Sebastian (played by Ryan Gosling) a down on his luck musician in the midst of some career soul searching. The film takes place over four seasons as these two characters cross paths and influence one another to pursue their dream in the seemingly amazing city of Los Angeles. There's so much good to point out here. First of all the performances by the two leads. Gosling and Stone have acted together before in love roles, and it's no accident that they were cast together again in this film. Their chemistry is crazy electric. You can't take your eyes off the two when they're together. It's such a genuine relationship that both pull off flawlessly. No one plays it up too hard, and not only does neither one try to outdo the other, they, in fact, elevate each other into one of the most believable onscreen relationships I've ever seen. Every moment feels so real, and that adds to the overall enjoyment.

The story itself is also great. I love how it centers around a deadbeat actress and a deadbeat musician trying to find their way in Los Angeles. They both experience their equivalent of the brutal-ness of the entertainment industry and the city of LA itself. They also each represent an equally important aspect of the movie, as the film is a musical, one of them cannot exist without the other. They are at their best when they are together and promoting within them to chase their dreams no matter how pipey it may feel. And the film really does capture the frustration that comes with trying to make it in La La Land. Even when you seem like you're more than cut out or that you eventually have to find that big break, there's always that one little hiccup that seems so small, but you can swear unfairly threw off your whole opportunity.  The pacing of the story is also amazing. Nothing feels like is dragged or rushed. The worst part of any love story is the fight --> temporary break up to instill conflict in the story/relationship, and luckily in this film it happens so naturally and wraps up so gracefully that you're not bogged down asking why did he/she do that, why doesn't he/she go make amends. It's over before you know it, don't worry.

The music was also pretty great here as well. There were admittedly fewer songs and performances than I anticipated considering how the film was advertised, but all the music and choreography here is perfect. It harkens back to the old musicals of the 1940s-50s a la Singing in the Rain, except the nuance here (other than it taking place in the present day) is the camera work, and how the camera is almost a dancer and performer along with the cast. There's never dull or still moment, and everything feels fluid. The camera work and editing mimics the beats of the music and the story so that the entire film feels like it's dancing along with the characters. Speaking of the camera work, the cinematography here is stellar as well. In fact, the whole film has this beautiful attention to detail that I worried was escaping mainstream movies. There are foreshadowing in the background images/music, there are metaphors and symbolism with the camera work, and like any good musical, all the lyrics of the songs are pivotal to the story. The costume design is the best I've seen in recent memory. Looking up what a color means in respect to a movie and matching them with what characters are wearing definitely enhances the viewing. There's so much I could say and gush about but like I said they're only details and have no real barring on the film other than enhancement.

And my favorite aspect of the whole film is how Los Angeles is portrayed and how the city itself is once again a character in a film. Due to high filming taxes, this is the first movie filmed on location in LA since Nightcrawler in 2014, and boy does the movie do it justice. Right off the bat with an opening dance number on the 110 freeway, you see what the city is made of and what it brings to the table. The singers are all diverse individuals from various walks of life, who all traveled to this city to make it big and enjoy the perpetual sunlight. It really shows you what they meant when they say La La Land. But the city is tough and has it's dark sides that aren't really advertised as much. It's brutal and unforgiving and even unfair at times. But the city will always facilitate everyone to have that one opportunity of success. The city is gorgeously represented by recognizable landmarks (Shouts out to the Pasadena Bridge for that 2-second cameo), and no area is referred to by their city name (ie Santa Monica is still LA). This just helps blend the illusion of LA as a city and a breeder of opportunity. And the vibrant colors that are accentuated in the filming are 1 to 1 with the synesthesia I associate with this town. Noir highlights the dark and brooding aspects to the city, but I think here for the first time the glitz and glam is captured as perfectly as you can get it.

The best part of the film is the last 15 minutes. Chazelle is always known for his films going out with a bang, and this film is no exception. (SPOILERS) When Mia and Seb first lock eyes after not seeing each other for 5 years, the entire movie you've seen up until this point is condensed into a music and dance number which is playing through both characters heads. It's not only a nice homage again to the musicals of an older time, but more importantly, this is how they idealized their entire relationship after being apart for so long. The bad aspects of it are now good and the good aspects are even better. It then goes into a scenario where if Seb had followed Mia to Paris, and how differently their lives would be because of it. But that's not what happened and that's not how life works. They both needed each other to realize their dreams but they also needed to be separated in order to achieve them. They both realize that and as much as it kills them, they accept their paths like a spoonful of old medicine. And they both still love each other for it in the end (END SPOILERS).

So that's La La Land, the most pleasant experience I've had in a movie this year since Too Late (which is hard to count since seeing it in 35 mm was a literal once a lifetime chance). Objectively this is the best movie I've seen this year. Anyone can get behind it from a casual movie goer to a balls deep movie fucko like myself. If you're worried about not being able to get into it because it's a musical, I promise you the musical numbers appear naturally and fit so well with the film/story that you won't even be bothered by it.  I'm sure it will be leading the academy awards with plenty of nods, so be sure to check this one out while it's at a mild simmer. 9.5/10

*First blog post in a while, it's been a very uninspiring year but I don't think this blog will die as long as there are movies that still excite me to the point where I want to write essays about them. I apologize if the style and writing are a little shaky as I am rusty with my own style. I hope to get some more posts in here as awards season comes to full effect*

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Why Video Game Movies Never Work


Man it's been a while. I honestly didn't stop writing because I got bored, or my phase past or whatever. I stopped because I haven't been that inspired to talk about anything lately. A lack of me not seeing many recent films, plus just feeling out of creative juice. I don't have any quota, I just like to talk about things genuinely. With that being said, there have been a number of topics and film analysis' that have been going through my head. But I was recently tasked to do some creative development for a film, and without getting into any specifics, it involved film adaptations of video games. This to me is exciting because, for a lot of my childhood, and even now (though not as much unfortunately) I was a gamer. I used to feverishly monitor the game industry from the year 2007 and continuously for the next 7 or so years. My decline has a lot to do with the downward trend of the video game industry, lack of time and accessibility, and growing up. Despite all of that, I still am fairly up to date with blockbuster console games and sequels to franchises that I hold near and dear to my heart. So it's safe to say I have a general understanding of video gaming. Now here's the (multi)million dollar question: Why do all video game movies suck?

It's no secret that practically every video game adapted into a major motion picture has both suffered critically and finically. Why is that? Well every VG film is different and suffers it's own set of problems but it all boils down to a few things: pacing, tone, nostalgia blindness, and lastly the game itself. I kind of want to address each aspect and talk about why you need a perfect balance of all of these in order to have a "successful" video game film (depends how you define successful; Warcraft was received poorly critically, and had box office troubles domestically but was saved by China with record-setting numbers).

Pacing is one of the most important aspects in any story. Your story can be amazing, but if the pacing is off, it can come across as either a hot mess, or a slow, unsatisfying burn. You kind of have to play to the strengths of the story and what you are trying to convey overall. A good rule of thumb is if you think the movie didn't feel as long as it actually was, it's being paced right. That doesn't mean that if a movie feels long that it's dragging, it's only a simple thought to follow by. So when writers and directors are presented with the story of a video game, they're trying to figure out a way to fit that whole story into a 2 hour movie. A good video game will take on average around 10 or so hours to complete. Can you see the problem? A video game's story is fleshed out and paced to fit the bill of a 10 hour or so game. It needs to proportionally feel like a movie in terms of build up and pay off. So some games where almost all of it's 10+ hours are vital to the story will have trouble squeezing into a 2 hour film. You can take out bits, but they may be crucial to the depth the game adds. So if the game is long and a lot of it's info is crucial, maybe it's not right for films. That's why games like Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy (not counting Advent Children [don't worry if you don't know what that is, it sucks]), though brimming with a rich story, haven't been attempted to make into a live action feature, because there is just too much to work with. It would be overwhelming to have all the relevant info packed in, and criminal to dumb it down in order to make it work. There's a reason why a lot of fighting games have been turned into movies: little to no back story, puddle deep characters, and easy to replicate ascetics. My solution to this is consider tweaking the video game story in favor of the film. Don't have it be a 1 to 1 adaptation of the story, the expectation is set too high. Instead go the route of the new Assassin's Creed film, where significant changes have been made to the story everyone know's but is still recognizable to the fans. The jury is still out whether or not the film is good, but I'm optimistic with the amount of effort they've been putting into it.

Tone is another one of those things that filmmakers can get so easily caught up in. They want to make their film deep, character driven, and bleak even. But these are movies based on video games. They fall under a category of escapism. No one wants to go into a Call of Duty movie and be reminded of the horrors and consequences of modern warfare on society. They want to see cool, absurd gun violence with battles and things like that. You can have those undertones, but they shouldn't be explicitly stated to the audience. Have them come to that conclusion on their own by observing the world. You can still have fun in a movie while getting a dark point or tone across (Shaun of the Dead). Speaking of Edgar Wright, I personally believe he's made the best video game movie ever and it's not even based off of a game. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World should be the poster child for every cartoony adaptation film. It doesn't just use dialogue to forward it's comedy, it also uses the camera and it's world to it's advantage. Just watch this scene and you'll know what I mean.
Notice how the scene feels dynamic, there's hardly any moment where the camera is still. It's being used to give life to an otherwise mundane scene. Then there's all the little quirks, the words visualizing the sounds, playing with the magnets, the overlay phone conversation. Even a major plot point of the seven evil ex's are portrayed in a way we would assume this world to portray them in. Little things like this can add so much to a movie. I can think of so many films based off of games that could have benefitted greatly from this. Many consider the first Mortal Kombat film the best video game movie because of how over the top it was. It knew the strengths of the game and capitalized on it by having plenty of gore and violence that still is crazy to this day. Now the film doesn't offer much else than that, but for that reason alone it is considered a cult classic amongst the video game and film world. I understand darker games can't pull this off as easily, but as I will talk about more later, play to the strengths of the gameplay and world.


Nostalgia blindness is where things get tricky. Directors and studio heads think that by picking a video game IP that is beloved amongst the general community, that it'll automatically do well. Well the 1993 Super Mario Bros. Movie is just undeniable proof that that''s just not the case. Mario is one of, if not the most celebrated video game license ever. If his name alone can't save a movie there's clearly a problem. Now yes there is the argument that it came out when Mario wasn't even at his peak in popularity, but it just shows that it just wasn't meant to be made into a film. This movie does contradict my argument of changing the lore to fit a film, but the changes they made I'd argue are more absurd than the actual game itself. I mean look at this. This is supposed to be a Goomba. Like what actually.

The movie bombed so badly that some people don't even remember it. Nostalgia is not enough to make a movie. You need content that is suitable for a film that uses the world of the video game itself.

Another point that goes along with the Nostalgia aspect: good gameplay ≠ good film. Many games are successful not for their story, but for how they play. In fact, a majority of gamers like to play their games devoid of the stories. They'll go straight to the multiplayer if the game offers it. When I think of video games that would make great films, only a hand full come to mind (Uncharted, Bioshock, Halo, Maybe Zelda) because their story alone carries the game. And what many studios fail to realize is that other games with great stories and settings are already based off of movies. Resident Evil is Dawn of the Dead, Tomb Raider is Indiana Jones, Need for Speed is Fast and Furious. It's fun to play movies. It's less fun to watch movies based off of games based off of movies. The important thing here is strategic choice. You can't just pick any game and make it into a movie (I mean you can try). There was a news story just released saying that a new movie based off of the puzzle game Tetris has a story that's too big so they're making it into a trilogy. The Hobbit was barely a trilogy, and that has a stupid amount of more content than a game about lining up blocks in a strategic line. Let's see how this one turns out.

The last point is something I brought up earlier and I feel like ties this whole long discussion up is to play to the strengths of the video game. If you are going to pick a game that seems unconventional for a movie, what does it succeed in as a game? There's a reason you picked it, and there's a reason it's popular. As far as I'm concerned, this is where the majority of the creative efforts should be placed into. Resident Evil was successful as a game early on for it's survival horror game play. This means that the player is placed in a horror setting with very little to find around to survive. Conservation of ammo is crucial and you have to make split second decisions as zombies come out of no where. This in turn creates a level of tension and suspense that indie game developers are trying to milk into the ground with their Slender Man/Five Nights at Freddy's clones. People get a rush off of being the underdog in a video game. So the movie should be more along the lines of Alien, and less action packed, semi-low stakes that it is today. It's not so night and day as I'm making it out to be, but honestly it really is a neglected aspect of these movies that I think can really increase the quality of them.

So that's it in a nutshell! Obviously this isn't a manifesto that has the cure to all VG film woes, but I think by having a collection of the main aspects of what needs to be done right can really help enhance why these movies fail all the time. Another big reason is that film makers aren't game designers and game designers aren't filmmakers. They both trust that each of them is doing their duty properly to ensure the movie is top quality when both don't know the mistakes in their each others flaws. And I mean of course there is a chunk of movies solely made to cash a check with zero regard for the finished product. It's a very complex world, but I hope one day that there can be a list of films based off of games that are considered good! Only time will tell, but from the success of Warcraft and the looks of Assassin's Creed, there seems to be a good upward trend happening here. If you were unfamiliar with most of the games, don't worry, the movies they're based off of are not very good for the most part. I would recommend playing the game instead. Thank you for reading, I hope to get some more of these out soon!

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Noir Time! #5: Chinatown (1974)


Well here it is. My favorite neo noir ever, and a film that is without question in my top 5 favorite movies of all time. Chinatown is a master piece. I was planning on saving this one once I had a few of the classical era noirs down, in order to highlight the differences between the old and the new, but with Too Late coming out and blowing me away, I kind of already got into what makes a neo noir different from a regular noir. I think it also serves this 'Noir Time!' editorial better to jump around between older and newer noirs rather than front loading all the classics and being stuck with only neo noirs to talk about. But anyways. I don't think I'll be able to satisfy myself with what I write here about Chinatown. I can go on for days and I'll still miss an aspect of this movie that makes it amazing. But I'll try my best to coherently summarize why this is an all time great film.

Chinatown follows private detective Jake Gitties (Jack Nichelson) in 1939 Los Angeles, as he's hired by a mysterious Evelyn Mulwray to tail her husband Hollis because she believes he's cheating on her. Upon tailing Hollis, Jake finds out that he's tied to the major water and aqueduct project that would bring in tons of water to the city of Los Angeles, stealing it from the nearby valley. At a hearing, he finds that Hollis is against this idea, but most of the city is pushing for the measure to pass. As the day goes on Jake does in fact catch Hollis sharing a boat in Echo Park with another woman. When he returns to the office to share his findings, anther woman is there claiming that she's the real Evelyn Mulwray (Faye Dunnaway), and that he was hired by an imposter. This causes Jake to poke around even further, and a huge conspiracy unfolds as he uncovers more and more about the Mulwray's and the controversial water project.  The underdog aspect of this movie that really sets it apart from other films that try and do this (cough cough L.A. Confidential) is its atmosphere and tone. This feels like a Noir from the 40s in color. Everything in the movie looks like 1939 Los Angeles as it was, as opposed to a blatant and polished set. I feel like director Roman Polanski took his cast and crew back in time and shot in the streets of 1930s L.A. They filmed on location too, no replicated sets, which is even more of a testament to their achievement. The music is perfect. The overall theme is a beautiful somber jazz ballad which is equated with many noirs. The score can be downright chilling at times, like when Jake is spying on Hollis, or he takes a trip to the reservoir at night. It makes you feel like some real shit is about to go down, but it never does (at least that's what you think). The locations of the film are so damn memorable and vivid too. Echo Park, the Orchard, the retirement home, the reservoir, the dried up river mysterious ethnic boy who's riding a horse and gives Jake 'Obi Wan-like' guidance. They're all so colorful and vivid in my head. It goes with what I said in the Too Late review that the bight and vivid colors contrast with the very dark and depressing tone this film has. I can't really describe what feeling that invokes but its a very prominent and profound one. All of that to me help completely justify the twist at the end.

Let me talk about twists for a sec. A twist in a film isn't something anyone can put into a movie to shock the viewer for the sake of memorability. A twist has to do more than that, it has to be earned. It is why M. Night Shyamalan has not found any critical success since the Sixth Sense. He throws them in for the sake of having them, and for making it a part of his brand, when in fact most of the time it's cheap confusing and groan-worthy. What I just said in the previous paragraph was basically that the aesthetics and tone alone were enough to justify any sort of twist at the end of this movie, which there is. But Chinatown is so amazing, it has multiple aspects for it's justification. [SPOILERS] So let's talk about that twist. Finding out that the girl Evelyn has been hiding her daughter that came from the rape by her father is an absolute mind bender. So first of all, the movie up until this reveal was playing it very straight, like a classic noir of the 40s. It was hitting the same beats of those films: the venerable private eye, the femme fatale, vivid imagery, a conspiracy that's bigger than any case the private eye has had before. So we as the viewer are expecting a similar experience. We think we kind of know along the lines what's going to happen, not necessarily plot details, but how the movie will resolve itself. We think we have it figured out. Because if you've been reading these pieces before, I always reiterate that these movies are not about the destination, they're about the journey. So we as the audience have our guard lowered going into the twist. When it happens, all of a sudden Polanski has flipped the concept of a noir on it's head. The destination of the film becomes just as crucial as the journey. And it's so shockingly out of left field that you feel sick to your stomach when it happens. And just when you think it's all done and your guard is all gone again, bam, the police shoot Evelyn in the head as she tries to escape with her daughter from her evil powerful and corrupted father Noah Cross. Your left gobsmacked (hi I'm from 1956) and you have the same disbelief, the not-knowing-what-to-think-or-feel feeling that Jake has at the end of the film. The famous line "forget it Jake, it's Chinatown" was the movie speaking to the audience in a meta way. So that's one reason why this twist is so good. There's more however

So the twist is very much justified, but it's not hollowly created for the sole reason of shocking the audience. There is some serious subtext behind it. Having an inbreed child really just emphasizes the corrupt personality of Noah Cross. He goes against everything that's considered morally right, and that includes breaking natures law of never molest or rape anyone that's related to you, especially your own daughter. He doesn't care though, he knows he can get away with it. And he does! He isn't arrested or dethroned or stripped of anything other than the life of his true daughter. This is just showing how the top of the top in this world are untouchable. No matter what you do, no matter what evidence you uncover, that 1% will never be affected. A truism that resonates all too familiarly today (see the Big Short). The death of Evelyn to me represents the death of the old, reputable Los Angeles. That's really what this movie is about in a sense. It was written by Robert Towne, but it's no coincidence that Roman Polanski chose to direct it. Polanski's wife was the victim of the Manson family murders back in 1969, and was brutally killed in their Los Angeles home. Polanski, mortified, moved away from L.A., and almost didn't even return to direct the picture because of how scarred he was. I think in the end he really wanted to make a piece exposing how this city may seem all that, but it was built on the foundation of corruption. I believe Kathrine Cross, daughter of Evelyn and Noah, represents what L.A. has become. It's the inbreed result of corruption, lies, and crime, yet is still somehow still beautiful on the exterior. In my opinion, this is the best twist ending of all time [END SPOILERS]

Let's talk a little more about L.A. because to me, it is a main character in this film. Other than the gorgeous set pieces, there is a lot to be said on behalf of the city. The overarching concern is water, and how the city needs more of it. It's highlighted that they're in a drought (when jake visits that dry river bed) and they're going to be needing to take water from near by areas, unfairly. These areas would be the valley and south of L.A. This was actually a concern for Los Angeles back in the day. If Mullholland (Mulwray hmmm) hadn't built a similar style aqueduct to Los Angeles, it is believed that L.A. would be no bigger of a town than Santa Barbara with a similar wealth distribution. Without the water, there would be no industry, less of an influx of immigrants seeking opportunity, and no upscaling the seemingly empty areas. So it's pretty clear why the movie chose to focus on water. Us Californians are in the middle of a huge drought, we're no strangers to the power of water. I also like the little touches on L.A. the film has. For example, as soon as Jake crashes his car in the orchard, he becomes less confident and more helpless. He needs his friend to give him a ride places, and that affected the outcome of the end of the film. This is the film's subtle way of saying that you need a car in Los Angeles to survive, similarly to Sunset Blvd.

As for the actual characters, our main leads are amongst the most memorable in all of Noir. Jack Nicholson absolutely transforms himself into private eye Jake Gittis. He has this confidence and swagger of any dic of the time, and you feel like you can trust his actions, that he knows what he's doing. As the movie goes on his confidence diminishes, and all of a sudden your safe net that you've placed on Jake begins to become nonexistent. You're at the mercy of the movie. Evelyn Mulwray is one of the most interesting femme fatales out there. She's not trying to cheat Jake, she's not after anything material like most other femmes. She just wants freedom. Freedom from her father, and to break away from her life that she's currently in. Her love for Jake is actually true, and what keeps her from fully realizing it is her insatiable thirst to start a new life. John Huston as Noah Cross is also an amazing cast. Huston is known as a legendary director and actor, and is famous for directing one of the first noirs the Maltese Falcon. It's safe to say his casting was deliberate.  He's cocky, poignant, and just without any sort of moral fiber. He's amongst the best of the worst.

And that's all I really have to say about Chinatown. I know I'll be forgetting some points and facts about the film, and maybe I'll update this post as I remember them. The fact is this is one of the best movies ever made. Period. It does justice to the movement of noir, the old pulp novels from the likes of Raymond Chandler, the city of Los Angeles, and of course us the viewer. If you haven't seen it, I highly highly recommend that you do. If you have seen it, but only once or not in a while, I invite you to revisit it with these points in mind! It's one of those movies that never gets old to me, no matter how many times I watch it. It's a testament to masterful filmmaking. And to me, it's one of the very best Noir has to offer.