Scattered Thoughts on The Paper Chase


I recently rewatched The Paper Chase, currently streaming on Netflix. This is one of the many movies my dad recommended to me when I was in my teens and starting to get interested in older and different types of movies, so it’s one I tend to associate pretty strongly with him. (When I imagine my dad in college, the image is partly informed by Timothy Bottoms in a mustache and corduroy.) Most of dad’s recommendations were from the 1970s, especially the middle of the decade, which makes sense now: he was then in his early 20s and paying attention to pop culture in a way he wouldn’t when he started a family. Among his other recommendations when I was young: The Conversation, The Sting, both Godfather movies, All the President’s Men, The French Connection.

The Paper Chase is still pretty good, and it holds up more than 40 years later thanks to the dynamic between Hart (Bottoms) and Professor Kingsfield (John Houseman). It’s a little loose around the edges, and it paradoxically feels a little less structured even as it works toward the final exam that provides the story’s main goal. But this kind of looseness also makes for a nice parallel with the inner lives of the students in the movie, who start out so bright and sharp and slowly lose their way as the first year of law school makes dull tools of them all. The relationship subplot between Hart and Susan (Lindsay Wagner), Kingsfield’s daughter, which seemed so impenetrable and adult the first time I saw the film, now feels thin and one-sided. Wagner gives a few great moments that provide some sad depth to her character, but the story doesn’t quite know what to do with her, and the film is weirdly silent on Hart’s apparent inability to recognize the perverse, possessive thrill he gets from intimately knowing the offspring of the teacher he will never figure out. To writer-director James Bridges’ credit, though, Hart’s pretty clearly a dick for most of his interactions with Susan, and he pays for it. He’s not made out as a hero or anything.

It’s a solid movie, though, with some good performances and a good story. It’s shot by Gordon Willis, so there are some gorgeous compositions you might not expect, from the dim, cool look of Hart’s room to the nice positioning and sizing of Hart and Kingsfield throughout the film as their relationship changes. (The score’s also vintage mid-1970s adult-contemporary, which is probably the most dated thing about it.) Definitely worth revisiting.


Scattered Thoughts on Captain America: The Winter Soldier


• Captain America: The Winter Soldier is barely a movie as we understand them. It doesn’t stand on its own in any way, and it ignores basic storytelling and entertainment ideas so it can focus on brand management and delayed gratification.

• Like most sequels, the problem here is with bloat. There are actually two fully formed plot ideas competing for space here: 1) the spread of double-agents within S.H.I.E.L.D., the government-run force for good; and 2) the assassin known only as the Winter Soldier, his actions and history, and how his identity and destiny are tied to Captain America. Either one of those would be a totally workable story and give filmmakers and the audience plenty to explore and enjoy for two hours. Yet instead they’re jammed together haphazardly, the cracks pasted up with bad dialogue and cheap, half-hearted nods to what in another, better film would be storytelling.

• There are some laughable jumps in the plot, too. At one point, a supporting character offers to help Captain America, only to do so he’ll need to break into Fort Meade to steal back the special jetpack he used when he was in the armed services. In the very next scene, he has the jetpack. No fuss at all. Apparently, his attempt to infiltrate an Army base was completely successful, and none of the characters need to worry about the Army coming after them for having stolen advanced weapons tech. This is just the kind of braindead plot jump that we get in superhero and Marvel movies. But the real question is: if you’re going to make it so easy for the guy to get the jetpack, why make it sound so hard to get in the first place? The answer: to create false drama and trick the audience into thinking they’re seeing something happen, when in reality they’re being offered a disconnected series of events and told it’s a story.

• Most of the action is needless and gratuitous. Those are two different things, too. Needless action is that which can be removed without affecting the plot of the film. Action scenes can be handled any number of ways, but they all exist to serve the story. Things have to be different when they’re over. Random example: at the beginning of The Empire Strikes Back, the Empire invades the Rebel base, prompting a series of dogfights between small fighters and massive tank-like walkers. If you cut out that action scene, and simply went from the Rebels walking around their base to everyone scattered around the galaxy, the story would have an obvious hole in it. The action scene is what tells you that part of the story. In The Winter Soldier, most action scenes, chases, and fights exist not to advance the story but simply to fill time. Nothing changes when they’re over.

• The action’s gratuitous aspect comes into play when you start to realize how many people are shot and killed on screen, albeit with a curious amount of blood or actual physical carnage. The death toll here is unsettling. There are the scenes of mass destruction and mayhem that have become standard in CG-driven action films, and there are also plenty of people shot, killed, and crushed up close. This winds up being perversely more horrifying and more desensitizing at the same time: you’re numbed to the carnage even as each death feels more gruesome and ugly.

• There is no happiness or engagement or interest to be found here. Instead, watching the movie is taken on as some kind of cultural duty. The idea is to stay up to date with Marvel’s increasingly complex and arcane cinematic universe, not to have a good time doing it.

• Every studio is out to make money, and most of them want to find nice franchises, too. But what’s so weird about the Marvel movies is that they don’t feel interesting or enjoyable to watch. They aren’t about giving you a good time in the moment. They’re about teasing you along and telling you that all will be revealed in the next film, or the one after that, and that’s when things will really get good, we promise. But it’s just an endless tease. I wrote about this a couple years ago when The Avengers came out, and I’m not the only critic to feel weighed down and exhausted by all this, either. Marvel films, more and more, don’t even try to give you a good time in the moment. They merely promise a bigger bang down the road, trot out characters that only fans of the comics will know and understand, then cap everything with a couple of obscure teases.

• To that end, then, Captain America: The Winter Soldier isn’t just a bad movie with too many plots and not enough brains. It’s not even meant to be a movie, period. It’s just filler content. It’s random bits of dialogue and exposition meant to string viewers along until the next Avengers movie, or the next superhero team-up, or whatever’s happening on the S.H.I.E.L.D. TV show. It’s flat, unengaging, uninspired, and pointless. You don’t even have to watch it to know that nothing happens.

Film, Veronica Mars

Scattered Thoughts on Veronica Mars


I watched the Veronica Mars movie last night. It’s cute and fun and has some good jokes, though it’s best viewed as the most expensive piece of fanfic ever made. I was a big fan of the series when it aired, but I haven’t seen any of the TV episodes since the show was cancelled in 2007, so I was lost when it came to certain references or characters or in-jokes. There wasn’t really an attempt to make a movie that could even halfway stand on its own, and I have to chalk that up to the fact that the project was partially bankrolled by Kickstarter backers. Director and co-writer Rob Thomas wasn’t out to do anything other than create a kind of greatest-hits montage for the super fans that gave the series’ characters one last curtain call.

I found myself thinking of Joss Whedon’s Serenity while watching Veronica Mars. Whedon’s movie was also a continuation of a cancelled TV series (Firefly), and it was also heavily dependent on viewers having seen the original show beforehand. But Serenity also attempted to function as a cohesive film and, if not stand apart from the series, at least establish its own identity. Whedon’s movie opens with a nested series of adventures and flashbacks that provide context for the story, and the central narrative (one big chase) works on its own. You occasionally get the sense that things mentioned in the movie are fleshed out in the series, but it mostly hangs together. Thomas’s Veronica Mars, though, is on the other end of the spectrum. It would be impossible to enjoy it without watching every episode of the show, preferably right before watching the movie. It’s like a glossy and truncated version of the fourth season that Veronica Mars the TV show never got.

(Minor spoilers ahead.)

That feeling of fan service and instability also made for some weird character moments. Veronica hasn’t been back to her home town in almost a decade, having moved on to a new life and relationship with a guy she met in college. But once she gets back home, she realizes she still kind of has feelings for her old high school flame, and she sticks around to help him out, eventually breaking up with her boyfriend, sleeping with her old one, and solving the case of the day. This feels like something Thomas felt he had to do — reunite two characters who used to date — rather than anything that made sense in the story. Veronica’s new relationship seems to be going fine: she and her boyfriend have chemistry and energy, and his parents are flying in to meet her. She experiences no remorse or conflict about breaking up with him, and she beds the old flame pretty quickly. She doesn’t even look back. This is the behavior of a liar or sociopath, and in any other movie people would say “Wait, what?” But because this whole project is pitched as fan service, it’s like we’re not supposed to wonder how point A leads to point B. We’re just supposed to cheer that these people are walking and talking again. I get the enthusiasm — like I said, I was a fan of the show, and its first two seasons are very good — but the film often feels like a cheap trick. The series itself ended on a cliffhanger, as Thomas and company fought and ultimately failed to keep the show alive. But seeing how they’ve updated things, I almost wish the film hadn’t been made. The unanswered mystery was so much more promising.


Not This Crude Matter


(A few years ago, I wrote about The Empire Strikes Back. Today, May 21, is the 34th anniversary of the film’s original theatrical release, so I’ve decided to repost the essay. I’m reconstructing it here and not simply linking to the old post because, for whatever reason, the images won’t load properly on the other site, and a lot of what I talk about deals with the film’s visuals. Nothing online lasts forever, I guess.)


Gaining any kind of distance on George Lucas’ sprawling Star Wars film universe is no easy task; the series kicked off in 1977 and broke ground in the arena of pop genre movies and pretty much defined the modern blockbuster, and the plots and quotes are so deeply carved into the collective subconscious of moviegoers that it’s easy to forget there was a time when kids didn’t know what a Jedi was. (If in the course of this retrospective I don’t enumerate certain plot points well enough or find myself skating over others, I can only ask forgiveness for being so caught up in a genuinely beautiful film that I forgot to heed my own warning.) And though that kind of ubiquity is in many ways a testament to the films’ sticking power, it also makes it easier to overlook just what really happens in the films, and how. The absolute best of the lot is 1980′s The Empire Strikes Back, the second film in the original trilogy, and as is often the case with the works of art that matter most, its existence and effect are matters of layered dichotomies. It’s not just its place in pop culture history, its achievements within its genre, its technical breakthroughs, or its stylistic marvels. It’s one of those handful of films that managed to put the lightning back in the bottle and become something greater than its first chapter could possibly have hinted at or imagined. Namely: It’s a sequel that bests its forerunner yet wouldn’t be possible without it, and it’s a visual revelation that nevertheless places a premium on character and story.

The best sequels are the ones that deepen the stories set forth by their predecessors, taking an already powerful tale and giving it newfound weight. In fact, the whole reason sequels are generally derided in the first place is not (just) a reaction to what’s usually a bald-faced attempt to cash in on a built-in market by churning out an ancillary story; it’s because deep down we know that the new film will in all likelihood not live up to the original, and that those characters and moments that became part of our cinematic history will have to suffer through something almost apocryphal in the way it dares the viewer to forget it and focus only on the older story. That’s why films that come to be universally regarded as good sequels — The Godfather: Part II being right up there, for instance — are so adored. They managed to stumble once again upon the glory of their own origins while taking the story to new heights; they did the impossible.

Everything about The Empire Strikes Back feeds into those ideas of challenge and loss, and the sense that nothing in life will ever turn out quite like you’d hoped. From the very first frame, it strives to recreate the authenticity of the first film while simultaneously shattering any expectations that things will be the same. After delivering a seemingly fatal blow to the evil Galactic Empire at the end of the previous movie, the ragged band of rebels have fled to the frozen ice planet Hoth, whose wintry climate isn’t just a reversal from the desert location that opened the previous film but also an intentional tonal shift into something cold, blistering, and uncompromising. The main characters are all still around — Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), the hotshot pilot destined to lead the Rebellion; Han Solo (Harrison Ford), the arrogant smuggler turned mercenary; and Leia (Carrie Fisher), a princess whose home world was destroyed — but there’s a sense of disconnection between them and the world around them. It’s not that the characters aren’t as tightly bonded as before; it’s that they’ve had to move on from the afterglow of an apparent victory and once more take up arms against a swelling enemy. There’s an undertone of defeat to the Rebels’ decision to keep fighting, and that sense of weariness adds fantastic depth and resonance to the story, turning the characters into actual people who can tire, suffer, and be wounded.

The film’s first major action set piece is a battle on the ground of the ice planet between the Rebels, who are fighting even as they evacuate with plans to meet up at an established rendezvous point, and the oncoming Imperial forces, who have bolstered their army since the last go-round. The sequence is an impressive one considering the budget and technological restraints on genre filmmakers in the late 1970s, tightly edited by Paul Hirsch (with uncredited assists from George Lucas and then-wife Marcia) and propelled by John Williams’ influential symphonic score. But it’s also the film’s opportunity to begin to show the influence of screenwriters Lawrence Kasdan and Leigh Brackett. Brackett, a career sci-fi author, also wrote the scripts for a number of Howard Hawks’ Westerns, including Rio Bravo and El Dorado, and the script she turned into Lucas is a genuine space opera that mixes the sensibilities of both genres. After her death in March 1978, Lucas enlisted Kasdan to revise and finish the script. Kasdan would go on to write, among others, Raiders of the Lost Ark from a story by Lucas, but The Empire Strikes Back was his first screenplay, and it already showed the energy, buoyancy, and commitment to character that would define his best work. When Kasdan did Silverado a few years later, it was almost like he’d circled back to the story Brackett had begun.

The point is that the Hoth sequences that open the film aren’t just skillfully written or paced but that they demonstrate a classic economy of scenes and locations rarely seen in modern mainstream films. The first act of the film plays out on Hoth over the course of just a couple of days before Han and Leia take off in his ship, the Milennium Falcon, to evade the pursuing Empire while Luke travels to the planet Dagobah to be trained as a Jedi by an old master named Yoda. The lengthier second act cuts between these two settings — Luke on Dagobah, Han and Leia aboard the Falcon — before reuniting the storylines when Han and Leia eventually journey to the planet Bespin. Luke also travels there when he feels his friends are in danger, and it’s on Bespin that the film ends, with the capture and imprisonment of Han Solo and a gloomy, harrowing duel between Luke and Darth Vader, the dark lord second only to the Emperor. That’s it. Four principal locations: Hoth, Dagobah, the respective decks of the Falcon and enemy ships, and Bespin. The screenwriters have crafted a legitimate Western chase movie and set it in the stars, and the simplicity of the narration allows for a more direct and emotionally powerful film than one that shuttled between dozens of seemingly impressive planets or locations. It lets the story come shining through.

Those scenes with Luke and Yoda — a puppet brought to convincing life by technician Frank Oz — underscore the theme of change that dominates the film and that would eventually be subdued by 1983′s Return of the Jedi, which traded Luke’s introspective complexity for a flatly drawn savior. The power of The Empire Strikes Back is that it raises the stakes for Luke (and the others) by showing him just how far he has to go to begin being able to fight against the enemy that will never stop hunting him. What’s more, it takes a character who was narratively worshipped in the first film and puts him in stark isolation away from his friends, forcing him to grow up on his own as he struggles to control the Force, the unseen energy that binds all living things. Yoda warns that this is a “dangerous” time for Luke because it’s when he’ll be most tempted by the dark side of the Force, and the story forces Luke to deal with the choice between the quick and the good. Perhaps the best character moment for Luke is when he discerns that Han and Leia are in danger and worries with whether he can intervene in time to save them. Yoda counsels him: “If you leave now, help them you could. But you would destroy all for which they have fought and suffered.” This is the true meaning of tragedy: When attaining what you most desire leads to its very destruction.

Additionally, creator George Lucas’ world, so pristine in the 1977 film, has become grimy and lived-in for the second installment. Part of that can be attributed to a tonal shift in science-fiction spearheaded by Ridley Scott’s Alien in 1979, but it’s largely the work of gifted cinematographer Peter Suschitzky under the direction of Irvin Kershner. The film is gorgeously lit and beautifully shot, a triumphant and genuine work of art whose composition shatters that of every other film in Lucas’ franchise. Suschitzky is probably best known for his collaborations with director David Cronenberg, who started using the d.p. on 1988′s Dead Ringers and has relied on him since. Suschitsky’s camera work and staging are immaculate, using oblique angles and lovingly adorning every inch of the 2.35:1 aspect ratio with bold dashes of light and shadow. The original Star Wars, shot by Gilbert Taylor, had a much flatter look that relied too much on bright, cheap lights, and though part of that can be chalked up to the fact that Lucas was working on a shoestring budget with the first film, it still gives the first chapter the feeling of something ultimately amateurish, no matter how polished the final product. But Suschitsky and Kershner’s work was infinitely more visually complex, utilizing depth of field in a way that radically matured the fictional universe and made it more cinematically compelling and visually stimulating. The bold lighting choices, with characters often lit sparsely from beneath, also highlighted the emotional upheaval and change present in the story, serving as subtle cues that things will quite literally be turned upside-down for the characters. Suschitzky loads the film with amazing compositions:




Suschitsky relies heavily on blues and whites to emphasize the coolness (temperature-wise) of space and its environs, and he turns the main deck of the Falcon from a basic set to a living, breathing thing, pulsing with energy and heat. But it’s his compositions in the film’s third-act confrontation between Luke and Darth Vader, and the sad fate of Han Solo, that truly set the film apart from the rest of the series. He mixes blues and oranges to dazzling effect, tossing in elegant strokes of green and white to create something altogether breathtaking:





That epic confrontation between Luke and Vader contains no music until the very end, focusing solely on the intensity of the sequence and the dazzling sound design. The silence of some of those moments, and the abject failure of Luke’s attempt to defeat Vader, drive home the film’s lesson: Sometimes you have to fight your battles alone, and sometimes you will lose. Big. However, the absence of music in certain scenes also serves as a reminder of just how good composer John Williams’ score is for the entire film. This is the entry in the Star Wars series where Williams introduced the Imperial March, the piece of music perhaps most easily identifiable from and closely linked to the films outside the opening fanfare. The march is a stirring and iconic theme, and it’s no coincidence that it’s the calling card for the bad guys. However, Williams’ real stunner is the suite “Han Solo and the Princess,” which is woven throughout the movie as Han and Leia spend more time together and eventually realize they’re in love. It’s put to heartbreaking use at one of the darkest moments of the film, when Han and the rest are captured by Vader’s forces and Han is frozen in a stasis-inducing chemical before being turned over to a bounty hunter. He kisses her as he’s pulled away, the music swelling beneath them in a moment of bliss and loss. The suite is romantic and lush but never quite resolves, always landing somewhere minor or discordant; like the film itself, it’s propulsive but dark, resonant but unresting.

It’s difficult — almost impossible — to imagine modern mainstream film without the influence of Lucas’ original Star Wars, but it’s The Empire Strikes Back that’s really the keeper. Its existence is impossible without the first film, but it’s infinitely superior to its predecessor in every way: The story is more willing to take emotional and physical risks with the characters, and to wonder what it means to keep fighting when defeat is all but guaranteed. It’s a solid sci-fi action movie, a tale of doomed romance, and a coming-of-age story all in one. It’s a neo noir that bravely takes its narrative into dark and foreboding territory unmatched by its bookends and not even remotely copied by Lucas’ prequel trilogy two decades later, which boasted more special effects than anyone could have dreamed of in 1980 but never recaptured the fidelity of character and genuine heart of the earlier stories. The Empire Strikes Back is a dark tale of bruised heroes, a genre story of defiance in the face of death and of the bittersweet union of love and death. It’s a stunning sequel because it manages to recreate the splendor of its source, but it’s a magnificent movie because of what it achieves all on its own.


I Love Movies, and I Never Go to See Them

“We’re bad about going to see movies in the theater,” my wife said last night. “And by we, I mean you.”

She’s right, too. I almost never go to the theater to see a movie unless it’s one I’m being paid to review. When my wife and I went to see Jodorowsky’s Dune in the theater last month, it was an aberration. It had been months since I’d gone to the movies just to see a movie: last August, my wife and I went to see The World’s End, and earlier that summer we saw Star Trek Into Darkness. (I also caught Frances Ha in theaters last summer, as well.) It’s not that I don’t keep up with recent movies, either. I saw about 50 new releases in 2013 — that is, movies that came out that year — but most of those were on home video or cable a few months after their theatrical runs. It’s not that I don’t want to see these movies. I just realize that I don’t want to see them the way I always used to, in theaters. I think I might’ve figured out why that is:

• Cost. Movie tickets are usually more than $10 a piece, and there are other incidentals (parking, snacks, etc.) that often come with the package. It’s nice to have a night out at the movies, and I loved being with my wife at the Sundance theater for Jodorowsky’s Dune or the Alamo Drafthouse for The World’s End, but going to the theater on a regular basis gets pricey fast.

• Environment. You, reader, are lucky that you do not regularly attend — in all likelihood have never attended — the free promotional screenings that studios allow critics to attend for review purposes. The crowds at these things are uniformly awful, consisting mostly of 1) people who do not know or care what they are about to see and 2) people who are so fanatically devoted to seeing that specific movie that they started lining up at 2 p.m. and 3) the weird subculture of people who go to these screenings all the time. Dealing with that can get old. Crowds at regular screenings are usually better because they’ve spent time and money to be there, but phone users and talkers still crop up. There’s no stopping it. Yet that’s not the whole of the environment. Even regular screenings can be fraught with picture and sound issues, tech glitches, lighting problems (like when the house lights came up to full level about 5 minutes before Jodorowsky’s Dune ended), or more. There’s also the growing number of trailers and pre-show ads to wade through. I reviewed Noah even though it wasn’t screened for critics, which meant catching a Saturday matinee. The start time was 1:40 p.m.; after trailers and ads, the movie didn’t start until after 2:05. And at most megaplexes, you have something like “FirstLook,” which is just 20-30 minutes of ads and featurettes before the trailers. The feature film starts to feel like an afterthought.

• Ease of Replication. It’s always great to see movies on the big screen, and there are some theater experiences that you just can’t replicate at home. But you can get awful close. I’ve got a decent HDTV, sound bar, and Blu-ray player. This also touches on cost, too: I already pay for Netflix (with a Blu-ray option) and Hulu Plus every month, so it’s easy to watch a relatively new release without spending a lot. And for impulse disc rentals, I have three Redbox kiosks within a mile of my house, where Blu-ray rentals are only $1.50.

Those are all pretty popular reasons, too. I suspect that at least one, if not all, are shared by people who’ve seen their theater attendance decline in recent years. But there’s something else for me, too: I just don’t want to go to the movies because a lot of the time, I just don’t want to see anything that’s out.

Movies can be a form of collective cultural check-ins, a way to feel nostalgic for the moment we’re currently experiencing by talking about the same piece of pop culture. They’re one of the few true mass media experiences left, and keeping up with them can be a way to keep up with a lot of little conversations and jokes. But increasingly, I’m just not that interested in most major releases. I didn’t want to see Godzilla or The Amazing Spider-Man 2. This weekend brings Blended and X-Men: Days of Future Past. I don’t plan on ever in my life seeing the first one, though I might catch X-Men sometime. Next weekend: Maleficent (no interest) and A Million Ways to Die in the West (ditto). After that: Edge of Tomorrow (curious) and The Fault in Our Stars (no interest). The weekend of June 13 actually brings a pair of movies I’d like to see: 22 Jump Street and How to Train Your Dragon 2. Then there’s nothing that piques my interest until August at the earliest.

Maybe part of it’s just the season. Summer’s always an onslaught of plastic tentpoles and half-hearted sequels, and I’m at least 20 years past being turned on by the idea of a fourth Transformers movie or a remake of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. But I’m not sure that’s all of it. I don’t really know what it is. I just know that I feel less and less excited by most of what’s coming out, and looking more and more to smaller titles, fleeting releases, and older movies. I love movies — so much, and for so long — and I feel frustrated and confused by most large-scale releases these days. I don’t know if I’m burned out, or waiting for what’s next, or just over most of it. Maybe I’m tired of the self-seriousness and bombast of tentpoles that are never as good as we want them to be. Maybe I just miss seeing real human beings in the movies. I don’t know. But I still love the art, and I’m still looking.

Books, Film

Scattered Thoughts on Ender’s Game


I watched Ender’s Game today. It was adapted for the screen (from Orson Scott Card’s novel) and directed by Gavin Hood, who wrote and directed Tsotsi a few years ago and has directed Rendition and X-Men Origins: Wolverine in the interim. There’s a lot of potential in the story — in short, a young boy is trained in tactical warfare as humanity’s last hope against a hostile alien force — but a couple of key things keep the film from succeeding: its visual blandness and its weakness as an adaptation.

The visual blandness is apparent early on — everything looks like generic 2010s sci-fi, all blue lights and CGI buttons — but it becomes worse once the story follows Ender to the battle school that’s orbiting Earth. The school’s centerpiece is a massive zero-gravity where squadrons of young trainees engage in battle games using stun pistols and blocky props, and it’s in this room where Ender’s skills as a leader and thinker are supposed to start to shine. Yet Hood never matches his visuals to his characters’ dialogue or experiences. For instance, as a way to make sense of the confusing weightless room, Ender and his team decide to pick one wall as “down,” so they always have a way to orient themselves. That’s a really neat idea, and one with loads of potential for visually showing us a version of space and combat and action that we haven’t seen before. Yet Hood never visually illustrates this, nor does he do anything with the idea beyond letting two characters mention it to each other one time. Most of the sequences in this battle room are as choppy and direction-agnostic as most other modern action movies, despite the fact that the story is all about perspective and control. In other words, Hood never executes on the concept, which makes it kind of pointless to include. The first inkling of his indifference shows up when Ender and some other kids take their initial shuttle from Earth to the station, and Ender points out with a laugh that there’s no real up or down in space, talking with another character about how their ideas of “horizontal” and “vertical” become purely subjective. It’s a neat idea that’s not even borne out a little in Hood’s visuals, and the rest of the film is similarly lackluster.

Even worse, though, is the way the film feels choppy and incomplete, the way the worst adaptations do. Now, every movie adapted from a book must out of necessity compress and alter the literary story. Books are media of introspection, while films are driven by visuals; you have to radically change one to make it work for the other. Yet the adaptation also has to stay faithful enough to the book’s core for it to actually qualify as an adaptation; i.e., you would not turn Ender into a 1940s gumshoe who’s out to solve a mystery. The movie’s going to be the heart of the book, but it also has to be smooth and strong enough to stand on its own. You have to pare down the book’s beats to their emotional core, then build back out to get to the screenplay. And there are so many weird ideas, dead-end characterizations, rushed bits of looped dialogue, and clumsily edited transitions in the film of Ender’s Game that you can’t help but feel Hood is trying to do way too much here. He’s lumbering under the weight of the book, not telling its central story. Great adaptations aren’t impossible, either. One of the best of the modern era is L.A. Confidential, which trims about 500 pages of novel into just over two hours of screen time without ever feeling clipped or insubstantial. That film hewed to the three men at the heart of the story and worked out from there. Ender’s Game, though, feels like Hood tried to shoot everything in the book and found himself suddenly, on page 100 of the script, up against a wall. As a result, it’s a bumpy, almost random little movie that asks us to accept that the main character has become a gifted leader and good friend to his comrades while giving us almost no opportunities for that to play out on screen. It feels like it’s trying to be two or three movies at once — Ender’s emotional journey, Ender’s tactical development, Ender’s place in a galactic conflict — and as a result never feels like a single movie of its own.


Scattered Thoughts About Milius


John Milius was an interesting guy, and there’s no denying his talent (dude wrote Apocalypse Now, which by itself is a lifetime achievement) or his place among his contemporaries (Scorsese, Lucas, Spielberg, Coppola, etc.). But much of the documentary Milius has a breezy, by-the-numbers approach to biography, with talking heads and film clips laid out pretty much in chronological order, even as interviewees’ stories turn again and again to the ups and downs of working with Milius: he was temperamental, contrary, reactionary, erratic, gifted, passionate, stubborn, dedicated, and so on. In other words, the film’s structure and tone are often at odds with its subject. Co-directors Joey Figueroa and Zak Knutson — who’ve mostly worked as producers and directors for Kevin Smith projects — are clearly enamored of Milius, but their execution also tries to hide him away. Milius’ current medical condition (he had a stroke and is slowly working to regain his speaking abilities) is a matter of public record, but it’s hidden away until the end of the film and delivered almost like a gut-punch, played both for tragedy (gifted raconteur laid low and silent) and obstacle to overcome (Milius was in pre-production on a film about Genghis Khan when he suffered his stroke). It’s only in these final minutes that the film deepens and becomes about a man and his art, instead of just being about a wild guy who had some big times.

By structuring the documentary like this — by delaying Milius’ present state as long as possible and indeed setting it up as a kind of “reveal” — Figueroa and Knutson avoid dealing with Milius as the man they keep claiming he is. They go long on causes but short on effects, and parts of the documentary, while entertaining, are also only about as informative as a basic Wikipedia search. There’s some wonderful history here, and it’s great to see, and having Milius as a subject got them access to some nice interviews (like Scorsese, Lucas, Coppola, Spielberg, Schwarzenegger, etc.). But as neat as the movie is, it’s equally frustrating to be kept so far from its subject. Maybe Figueroa and Knutson wanted to keep Milius a legend, carved in stone and set high on a hill, instead of reckoning with the fact that he’s just a man, and as subject as any of us to self-deception and regret. Then again, for all that Milius is, it’s almost fitting that a film about him would be boastful and sweeping, funny and sad, and ultimately unknowable.