MYST Post #3: The Grand Budapest Hotel

Yesterday, I was able to see Wes Anderson's newest film, The Grand Budapest Hotel. I was super excited to see this film because I recently became a fan of Anderson last year when I saw his Academy-award nominated film, Moonrise Kingdom. So The Grand Budapest centers around the cryptic Grand Budapest Hotel, which we see in the present and then in its former glory. The Grand Budapest Hotel (in its former glory) was run by M. Gustave H. a very flamboyant man whose life is abruptly changed when a former guest is murdered, and he is the suspected murderer. With his lobby boy, Zero, M. Gustave H. tries to clear his name.

M. Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes) and
Zero Mostafa (Tony Revolori)

So the hallmark of all Wes Anderson films are their cinematic elements, primarily the colors and framing. I think as a viewer, those aspects are what drew me most into his films—that they're more than just an interesting story; they're an art form. And he didn't miss on this one. The colors were as vibrant as ever, throwing in more pastel colors (as seen above), most likely to reflect the importance of a character who works in a bakery but possibly also reflecting the childlike surreality of the film. In addition, Anderson continued with his center framing. To be honest, I was pretty put off by the center framing at first. It takes away from the drama of the characters. But as it progressed, I actually ended up liking it. I think that center framing the shot really shows how in-character the actors are. By center framing, they have to really put all their effort into each movement and expression. Also outside of these elements, Anderson casted a pretty famous crowd for The Grand Budapest Hotel, many of whom have worked with him in the past. The cast had the likes of Ralph Fiennes, Edward Norton, Owen Wilson, and Saoirse Ronan, and they were casted magnificently. Everyone put forth their best acting and it really shone through the screen. 

The highlighted scene described below

In terms of scenes though, I really liked the scene in which M. Gustave H. finds out that his murdered guest left a famed painting to him in her will. This causes a ton of ruckus throughout the room and ends with M. Gustave H., Zero, and the murdered guest's son on the floor with bleeding noses after a fist fight. This scene really stood out to me because of just how different it was than the rest of the film. In this scene, most of the characters are aptly dressed in black (as they are reading through a will), and they're mainly men. The colors are uncharacteristically muted for a Wes Anderson film. There are bear pelts and mounted moose heads all around the room. All of these add up to a scene I would not have recognized in any Wes Anderson film. I think this shift in color scheme and setting was to reflect the dominantly masculine aura in the room and also show the lack of the surreality. And the scripting also reflected this. There was a lack of quirky lines and witty phrases except for M. Gustave H. and Zero who were dressed in flamboyant purple. The scene overall played into Anderson's perception of each character and really represented his thoroughness in directing.

The murder in question

Overall, I really liked The Grand Budapest Hotel. I think it was just as witty and beautiful as I thought Moonrise Kingdom was. Though, I think plot-wise, people would like The Grand Budapest Hotel better. At the heart of the story was a murder mystery, which is a lot more compelling and easier to swallow than a pre-pubescent love story (I'm looking at you, Moonrise Kingdom). That being said, I would definitely recommend the movie to any Wes Anderson fans (you will definitely not be disappointed) and anyone looking to branch out into Indie/Arthouse films. Also I'd recommend the movie to anyone who liked or is interested in the recent Indie/Arthouse film, Her. Similarly to Anderson, Spike Jonze does a lot with color and setting in his latest film and did a spectacular job making Indie/Arthouse not just that "strange-and-stupid-indie-film" that can sometimes be attributed to experimental and different films within the Indie/Arthouse genre.

I give The Grand Budapest Hotel a 4.6 out of 5 stars. It was an incredible and beautiful story, but it sort of ended abruptly. Despite that minimal critique, I really loved the film and it is now my favorite Wes Anderson film. 

Until next time.

MYST Post #2: Jiro Dreams of Sushi

This week, I had the great pleasure of knocking down another movie off My List on Netflix, and this time, it was Jiro Dreams of Sushi. I'm usually not into documentaries, but 1) I've heard really good things about this specific documentary and 2) I love sushi (the former compelled me more towards the movie). So this documentary profiles the famed, 85 year-old sushi chef, Jiro Ono, who is the owner of the Michelin three-star restaurant, Sukiyabashi Jiro. The film covers his rise to sushi-making and his constant strive for perfection. Along with this, we see both his sons, Yoshikazu and Takashi, who both are striving to achieve the international recognition their father has as sushi masters. Takashi, the younger of the two, opened his own sushi restaurant called Roppongi Hills, which is a mirror image of his father's restaurant, while Yoshikazu, being the older of the two, is fighting to inherit both his father's restaurant and the lingering fame of Jiro Ono.

In terms of its cinematic elements, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Throughout the documentary, the director highlighted the sushi-making techniques and always had a close up of the finished product of the sushi (see above). What I loved about the director's portrayal of the sushi was that it was always so vibrantly colored. I think the vibrancy was important to the director not only because it's a movie about food, but also because it really shows that at the heart of the film is Jiro's devotion and love. Sure, Jiro is an enigmatic person who dedicated the last 75 years of his life to the art of making sushi, but knowing him as a character, drawing special attention to color really represents his passion. In addition to this, I loved how classical music played in the background in many scenes. At one point in the movie, a food critic notes, "Jiro's sushi-making technique is similar to a symphony," and in relation to how he serves his guests, "[Jiro] starts with lighter sushi and ends with heavier sushi." The music highlighted this aspect of his life very well and also served the director's greater purpose of starting with just casual aspects of Jiro's life and ending with broader messages of how to live your life (to both students and adults), the idea of legacy, and the environmental implications of the food industry.

From the montage of sushi preparation in the kitchen.

All these general aspects aside, my favorite scene was the montage of the sushi preparation in the kitchen. There are only five people working in the back, but all are on their way to becoming sushi masters. They've devoted more than 10 years to the art of making sushi, and by the looks of the documentary, no one is about to stop any time soon. What I loved about the montage was again, the vibrancy of the colors of various sushi and tempura making, and also the editing. I think a lot of the times, montages can get really messy, too fast of editing between scenes or over-dramatization of characters or the plot. This montage really sealed the deal in terms of its editing because it emphasized all parts of the kitchen with equal amounts of time at each station. It really hit it home for me because it showed that no one section of the kitchen was more important than the other. All parts were necessary, and therefore, every one of the five people working were integral parts of the famed Sukiyabashi Jiro and to Jiro Ono.

The five members of the staff and head chef, Jiro Ono.

Overall, I adored the film. I was very nervous going into it because it was a documentary, but I think it had a great story but even greater themes at the heart of it. I recommend this movie to any and everyone. I think at times, audiences could become bored because it's a documentary, but I think the film makes up for it due to its important messages which appeal to both young adults searching for their futures and adults wary of what lies ahead. Since I don't watch too many documentaries, I think a movie I find comparable in terms of message is The King's Speech. That movie deals much with legacy and what it means to be in the limelight, much like Jiro Dreams of Sushi. Also, I Googled "similar movies to Jiro Dreams of Sushi" and found one documentary called Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry, a documentary following the famous Chinese modern artist, Ai Weiwei. I think that documentary could be a good follow-up to Jiro Dreams of Sushi for the fact that Ai Weiwei is very stubborn and strict in his art form, much like Jiro Ono.

In all, I was blown away by Jiro Dreams of Sushi. I came into the movie thinking that I was going to just watch a couple of guys making sushi, but left with a heightened sense of taking hold of my dreams and really going after them. For its amazing cinematic elements and story, I would give this wonderful documentary a 4.8 out of 5 stars.

And I'll leave you with one of my favorite lines from the movie.

Formal Film Study: Academy Award-nominated films of Alexander Payne

Synopses of the films: http://fandan.co/1coHo5Z (Nebraska)

http://fandan.co/1gcO7PR (The Descendants)

http://fandan.co/1lmy8PX (Sideways)

For my first formal film study, I decided to look into Alexander Payne's Academy Award-nominated films. I first became interested in watching his films because my parents love Hawaii and constantly play The Descendants' soundtrack around our house, so it only seemed right to try to share in this family activity. Alexander Payne has recently gained press for his latest Oscar-nominated film, Nebraska, but earned a lot of fame for winning Best Adapted Screenplay for both The Descendants and Sideways. Therefore, I decided to look at these three films. What I found was that in all three films, there seemed to be an overarching criticism about American culture (as all three films take place in regions across America) and purposeful cinematography. 

While American-made movies are typically inclined to portray America in a positive light, Payne seems to critique this notion. We see this across all the films with very brash, borderline-obnoxious characters to juxtapose the main character and a slow pace to the films. I saw this audacious characterization in mainly the women of each film. In Nebraska, the assertive and loud, older mother (played by June Squibb) of the protagonist. She's often found cussing out other characters in the film and pushing for her opinion to be heard ("Did you know, he was always trying to get into my bloomers?"). Similarly in The Descendants, Alex, daughter of the main character, (played by Shailene Woodley) is found to be belligerent and often to yell out obscenities to her father or her sister ("So what? What if I got drunk the one day you came around? So f***ing what?"). And in Sideways, we see Sandra Oh play a seductive but mainly confident woman ready to find a partner ("I know; I need to be spanked"). I think this type of characterization is very different than found in typical American movies. Often, international critics comment on the overly sexualized role of women in American film, that American women are shown to always show skin or to be beneath men. So I found it very interesting that Payne portrayed these strong women to emasculate the main character (which across all three films is a weaker male protagonist). I found this part of his execution as director to be very auteur and different than most films, leading me to believe that he was critiquing American society.

  

    June Squibb as the outspoken Kate Grant in Nebraska

In addition to his portrayal of women, Payne also opposes the typical box office success of fast paced action thrillers, focusing more on the slower paced livelihoods of certain sects of America. In each film, Payne explores the bias surrounding each are of America and defeats it (ie. Hawaii is a wonderful paradise, California/the West is a place to party and escape to, and Nebraska/Midwest is a boring wasteland). We see in each film that all the characters face hardship in varying degrees but all are met with the same anxiety and fear seen in any other place around the world. So not only is Payne defying the stereotype of women in film but he is also taking a stand against what is typically defined as a success. It seems to me that Payne defined his success in terms of directing what he finds important rather than earning high marks in the box office. 

Beyond his criticism of America, I saw that Payne was very purposeful with his cinematography, but this cinematography was never the same in every film. In Sideways, the earliest of the Oscar-nominated films I studied, he was a bit more experimental in his framing of shots. I recognized this quickly at the beginning of the film when the main character and his friend were out wine tasting. Prior to watching Sideways, I watched Nebraska. In Nebraska, I never saw multiple shots being put together like in Sideways. I think this shows the growth and development of Payne as a director. Chronologically, The Descendants came after Sideways and I was struck at the difference between the two in cinematography. The cinematography featured in Sideways struck me because of its more diffused effect with blurry lines and also its focus on people rather than the setting around them, whereas in The Descendants, the cinematography was much crisper with lasting landscape shots on the land around them. We see even more development with Payne's latest Oscar-nominated film, Nebraska. Similar to The Descendants, Payne focuses on lasting landscape shots with crisp definition, but the technology changes drastically between the films. The Descendants had saturated color in every shot, encapsulating the colors of Hawaii, while Nebraska was in black and white, possibly trying to capture the stark attitude typically associated with the Midwest. So as cinematography goes, Alexander Payne is constantly experimenting and changing. He keeps some aspects constant, but I think he's looking for new ways to change and really make an impact with his choice in cinematography. 

Multiple shots within one screen
(Sideway) 

Landscape shot from
The Descendants

Landscape shot from Nebraska

A smaller aspect I noticed in his films were his use of sound to transition smoothly from one scene to another. Whether it was used in terms of music or voice overs, there was always sound when there was a lack of words. I think Payne did this to make sure that the audience was still paying attention during the movie. With the slow pacing, I can see how some audiences may be turned off with the films, so I think this was Payne's way of holding the attention span of his audiences. And he does this magnificently.

In all, I can definitely see that his films were nominated for good reason. Payne transcends what international audiences typify American films as and puts his own experimental spin on cinematography. He's a thoughtful director and an important one at that. Payne criticizes the American film industry in a very subtle way, but always makes sure to leave audiences laughing with his outspoken and interesting characters. Outside of my cinematic opinion of the films, I found that in my personal opinion, I liked The Descendants the most out of all the films I watched, followed by Nebraska and then Sideways. My opinion doesn't align with the success each film found in the box office though. The Descendants earned $82.6 M, Nebraska earned $17.1 M, and Sideways earned $71.4 M. I think my opinion was swayed mostly due to my high interest in the very different types of cinematography between The Descendants and Nebraska. The diffused and bleary shots of Sideways didn't really resonate with me as a watcher, nor did the storyline. But overall, I think that any Alexander Payne movie would be an amazing experience for any watcher. As stated before, he's clearly very thoughtful about what type of criticism on America he wants to portray to audiences and succeeds in achieving his goal. 

1935 Movie: "Smooth Criminal"

The type of movie my group and I chose to do was a black and white screwball comedy, since it was very popular during the post-Great Depression era. Black and white technology was still very popular at the time, and we thought it'd be appeal to audiences to continue with this trend. As for the genre, we wanted audiences to be able to escape the morose, every day life by laughing and having fun with interesting characters. So our movie was titled "Smooth Criminal," and was directed by Howard Hawks, starred Carole Lombard and Clark Gable, and featured Shirley Temple. The story follows Lucy (Carole Lombard), a woman living in a hospitable and sociable neighborhood. She was hit pretty badly by the Great Depression and has lost her job and most of her money, and to combat her growing despair and debt, she turns to crime. Lucy has incredible perseverance and conviction but unfortunately lacks the skill to follow through the crime. Although she isn't very good at being a criminal, because she lives in such a cordial and loving city, Lucy does attract the attention of local authorities, particularly Police Chief Cooper (Clark Gable). He hounds her, but she always ends up eluding him, until one of his days off. Police Chief Cooper is out and about with his daughter Daisy (Shirley Temple) and encounters Lucy in broad daylight. The movie centers the chase on this particular day and their constant game of cat-and-mouse.

Our style, as already noted, is screwball comedy, though we went for a different type of screwball comedy. Most screwball comedies include romantic interests, but we chose to remove this part of the typical screwball comedy to avoid conflict with the Hays Code and to appeal to Howard Hawks' famous "Hawksian woman." Hawksian women are depicted as a dominating figure when juxtaposed with the male character, and I thought it'd be interesting to stretch the definition make the woman independent of a concrete romantic relationship. Also, we incorporated gangster elements into the film. We did have to change some aspects to concur with the Hays Code, for example, we were wary of showing any weapons, so Carole Lombard had to become this incompetent character. With all these elements though, we chose not to have a have a message, going with an escapist sentiment. I thought this would really appeal to audiences because they just want to escape the monotony and depression of their lives at the time.

The studio we chose to work with was Columbia Pictures. The scale of the film would be medium sized given the actors (even though all of their careers were simply budding at this point) and because a big budget film could have potentially hurt Columbia Pictures. And although it was a relatively small movie studio, we thought it would work well because they were famous for their screwball comedies and their resident screwball comedy director, Howard Hawks. Hawks was a perfect choice for our movie both for his abilities as a director and for his connection with Carole Lombard: [fun fact!] they were second cousins! So we definitely thought it'd be good for them to work together. Lombard gained her beginnings in screwball comedies, and we thought she'd be a perfect fit for the role of this wacky character. As for Clark Gable, we thought he'd be a great character foil for Lombard's headstrong character. He has pretty charming, good looks so we thought it'd be interesting to see him a little exasperated with different emotions. Plus, later in their careers, Gable and Lombard end up married, so they obviously had chemistry and could work well together on set. And for Shirley Temple, we thought it'd be great to incorporate her because she was just a budding star at the time. Also I noted in other films, she was a pioneer in the idea of children being represented as more cognizant than the adults around them. So I thought it'd be overall interesting parts for all the actors and very representative of their abilities.

In terms of what we'd like to highlight, I thought it'd be a great idea to focus on costume and makeup. This would fit well with our story because the main character, Lucy (Lombard), would need to have extensive changes in the demeanor of her character as she grows older and turns to crime. Two significant people of the era I chose to represent this monumental task were Maurice Seiderman for makeup and Edward Stevenson for costume design. Both later work together for the development on "Citizen Kane," and after watching the movie, you can see what leaps and bounds they went to for their respective position. The makeup and costume design was what really stood out to me while watching "Citizen Kane," and I saw our movie as a launching point in their careers for them to experiment with their profound abilities.

In all, I don't think I would change too much of our film. But I think that we spent a lot of time contemplating how to get around the Hays Code and less time thinking about how to make the movie great and different. So that's my only critique.