The Theory - 'True Detective'

We finished episode 5 of 'True Detective' and this is my theory on the show and Detective Rust Cohle:

‘True Detective’  Theory on Rust Cohle:

 

Episode: 1

“Start asking the right fucking questions.” -Cohle

• Cohle wants to know more about the case - obsession  

Episode: 3

“The world needs bad men, we keep the other bad men from the door.” - Cohle

• Cohle doesn’t claim to be good… he’s not. But he’s better than the men he’s after. Everything he does in the end justifies the means.

  Episode: 5

   “Show me the file. Isn’t this supposed to be a consultation?” - Cohle

• Cohle is after the killer… the yellow king. 

“How about you let us see what you're keeping in storage?” - Present Day Detective 

 “Fuck no, you can’t see my storage unit.” - Cohle

• Cohle has evidence. Cohle is tracking the yellow king… and he always will be.

  

   Because life is a circle that repeats itself.  This is a world where nothing is solved...

This is my theory and maybe they will change by the end of the series...

But this is part of what's great about this show, we all have different theories.

What are your's?

- George McCann

   

True Phenomenon, The Brilliance of 'True Detective'

Until January 12, 2014 the cop drama procedural was, just that, a by the numbers procedural cop show. On the 12th, we all got a brilliant rude awakening with the HBO drama 'True Detective', a show that has flipped or, better yet, removed every single procedural cliché.

The show is about two Detectives: Cohle (played my Matthew McConaughey) and Hart (played by Woody Harrelson) as they track a ritualistic serial killer. It sounds very cliché... it is not.  The show takes place in both the past and the present.  In the past, we are following the case and the darkness in the lives of these two detectives.  In the present, these now retired and disturbed detectives are being interviewed by the police.  Why, we don't know. 

'True Detective' is a show that thrives on brilliant writing, specifically character development and development with little or no exposition. 

What is so amazing is that this show is very, very philosophical and interesting, yet not boring.  We care as much about these detectives' lives outside of the case because it informs their actions in the case.  These men lead extremely different lives.  Cohle is a man of philosophy and pessimism; where Hart is a man cheating on his wife, trying to convince himself that he is a family man.  Both men are right for the job but wrong for almost everyone around them.  The show thrives on realism both in the case narrative and character narrative.  

In terms of action, there is not a shot fired in the show until the fourth episode and when shots are fired, it's not for filler; it is furthering the story in the most impressive way I've ever seen.  We got a 6 minute one take tacking shot with Cohle undercover on a drug bust, tracking a lead to find the killer.

There is a line in the show that sums up the darkness, realism and fantastic symbolism we receive and it is this:

Hart: "Do you wonder ever... if you're a bad man?"

Cohle: "No, I don't wonder, Marty. The world needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."

People don't think much about this line when they first hear it, but later, down the line, everything comes full circle.  Nothing in 'True Detective' is there just to look or sound good. Every line spoken, facial expression or movement means something.  Maybe we don't realize it right away, but we do next week or the week after.  That is a gift that as a viewer I am extremely thankful for; we aren't just viewers, we are part of the case and process. As we watch this, we consciously or unconsciously are following leads, the same as Cohle and Hart, because this show is unpredictable. There are things left specifically for us to pick up and figure out.  When a show can pull that off and not be boring or convoluted, it is something remarkable. 

I think 'True Detective' has broken ground for all television from this point forward, and we are only 5 episodes into the 8 episode arc.  Although, if I'm being honest, I wish it was an 18 episode arc because this is too good to not be on my television screen every week.

- George McCann

Philip Seymour Hoffman Rest In Peace (Thank you for sharing your talent)

Today is a sad day for every actor, writer, director and fan of film across the world.  Today Philip Seymour Hoffman, an actor of immeasurable talent, was taken from his family and the world.

Philip Seymour Hoffman was an actor who transformed himself in every role, be it television, film or stage; the man did it all.  He was an Oscar and Tony winning actor and a true talent.  Thinking back, the actor Hoffman reminded me of most was Marlon Brando... two character actors who could do more than carry a film.  When they were on screen, they were the film.

Today is a sad day, indeed.  All I can do is reflect on an amazing body of work left behind by a man taken too soon, due to addiction.

My thoughts and prayers go out to Philip Seymour Hoffman's family and I hope he is resting in true peace.

Mr. Hoffman,

Thank you for sharing your talent with us, if only for a brief time.  You will live on through your work... forever.

- George McCann

Is Technology Ruining The Magic of Film?

The 21st Century has been an amazing time for cinema. It's been revolutionary.  We are living in a new age of cinema - the technological age.  We now have cinematic marvels like 'Gravity', 'Avatar', 'Star Trek' and 'Star Trek: Into Darkness'.  These films are all beautiful and filled with mind blowing images and special effects.  But in this new age of cinema, have we lost something?  Have we lost the mystique of filmmaking, the mystery?  The reason I ask is with every new technological film and, at this point, new film in general, we have updates on websites, numerous trailers, still photos and behind the scenes featurettes.  All of this is during the filmmaking process.  I think the age of technology has taken the mystery out of filmmaking and out of viewing films as a whole.

Imagine this: It is 1981 and Steven Spielberg and George Lucas have teamed up to make a film.  The film is titled 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'.  Now, imagine all the speculation, videos, trailers, articles, and set photos that would be released if 'Raiders' had come out in 2014...  all the website casting speculation and plot details, etc.  The magic that Indiana Jones has and the magic of that trilogy would undoubtedly be greatly diminished.  Why?  Because we would have numerous trailers spoiling great scenes.  There is a magic to not knowing what would have been, and that is gone.

Before the internet, it was much harder to spoil a film.  You would have to hear plot details from a crew member or read it in a published magazine.  There were no blogs.  There was no Twitter, Facebook or YouTube for people to just talk or write whatever they pleased.  It was a more mysterious time in cinema.  It was also less "in your face" with trailers and promos.

Before 1990, films really only had one trailer.  One.  That was it.  Now we have about two trailers and one teaser.  That's the average.  Now imagine this: imagine seeing the film 'The Wolf Of Wall Street' or 'Gravity' with no trailers.  Nothing.  A short synopsis and that's all you get.  Now imagine leaving the theater having never seen a trailer, you only saw the film.  I bet people would have a very, very different reaction.  Maybe a positive reaction, maybe a negative reaction, but you would have gone into the film with no pre-conceived notions of what to expect.  You would have no expectations other than the talent involved and the synopsis you read.  Wouldn't that make for an amazing experience?  I sure think it would.

I don't think anyone can honestly say the internet has made the moviegoing experience better.  You would like or dislike 'Gravity' if you had seen the trailers or not, and I tend to think you would have liked it more, had you not.  Personally, I feel we as moviegoers are spoiled.  We are like addicts. We see one trailer and we need to see the next one.  Everyone and their mother was awaiting the 'Interstellar' teaser with baited breath, myself included.  But, I wish I wasn't.  I wish I saw the looks on people's faces when I first saw the movie.  I wish I heard Hans Zimmer's music for the first time, the first time I saw the film.  We are spoiled.  There are no ifs, ands or buts about it.

Don't get me wrong, I think technology has done a lot for film; absolutely.  But with all new things, old things are sacrificed.  For example, many filmmakers don't shoot on film anymore because digital is cheaper.  Think about that for a second... many FILMmakers don't shoot on FILM anymore.  So as we go out with the old and in with the new, I ask this... is what we are sacrificing worth what we are getting in return?

- George McCann

What Gives Awards Validity? A Different Perspective on Awards Season

Last night, the Golden Globes aired kicking off the 2014 Awards Season.  Many people refer to The Golden Globes as the redheaded stepchild of The Oscars; basically saying The Globes don't matter.  I beg to differ.  I believe The Golden Globes and The Oscars both matter quite a bit and, at the same time, don't matter at all.

THE GLOBES:

1. A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE:

I can't tell you how often people get upset with the winners of the Globes (at times, myself included).  I feel like the Globes give a different take on filmmaking.  The Globes are made up of Journalists from all over the the world.  So, there will be a very different perspective, as there should be.  For example, last year Ben Affleck won Best Director at the Globes and wasn't nominated at the Oscars.  Also, Kathryn Bigelow earned a direction nomination and was not nominated at the Oscars.  So, right there we have two different perspectives on filmmaking.  This, in my opinion, is a good thing.  The Hollywood Foreign Press and The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences are two separate entities; therefore, you will never have the same result.  Why is this a bad thing?  I don't think it is. I don't think it is at all. People have  made these awards very personal.  Why?  

The main reason I feel people dislike the Golden Globes is The Best Musical/Comedy category.  Let's talk about the Musical/Comedy category.  I think it is an interesting category to have and an important one.  That being said, the definition of a Comedy always seems a bit loose.  Yet, it is a nice counter to the Oscars, which is ALWAYS serious.  The last major Comedy to win an Oscar in my recollection was 'My Cousin Vinny' in 1993; 21 years ago. The last time a Comedy won a Golden Globe... last night.  Leonardo DiCaprio took home gold for 'The Wolf Of Wall Street' - a film that may get nothing at the Oscars.  So, Best Musical/Comedy is not a bad thing in my eyes.  The category gives worthy films consideration they may not otherwise get.

2. WHAT THE OSCARS MISS:

In some years, as with any human run organization, mistakes are made and sometimes films get missed or overlooked.  People are human.

Last year, I felt the above happened at the Academy Awards.  As I stated earlier, Affleck wasn't nominated for Best Director and neither was Kathryn Bigelow.  Also, John Hawkes didn't get a nomination for 'The Sessions' (which was, in my opinion, the best male performance all year.)  People have speculated the reason 'Zero Dark Thirty' didn't win any major awards was due to the content and politics.  That may be true; that may be malarky.  I don't know.  What I do know is that the Oscars are an organization made up of Actors, Directors, Cinematographers, Composers, Editors, Set and Costume Designers, Sound mixers etc. and all of these men and women (some having huge age gaps) vote in their respective slots.  I can understand great films getting missed and people having very different views and this is a major reason why the Globes matter.  If the Globes miss a great film, the Oscars might award it and visa versa.  The two entities are different with the same goal... award great achievements in filmmaking and that is exactly what they do.

The Globes matter as much as the Oscars do.  They give a different, but worthy, view on the best of the year.  

3. WHY NEITHER MATTER:

It is simple.  In the end, we remember how a film makes us feel whether it won an Oscar, a Golden Globe or a Razzie.  The power of films and filmmaking (at least of great filmmaking) is the emotion it brings to the table... how we laugh or cry.  Making and watching a film is about feeling something and wanting to make your audience feel something.  Let's celebrate that.

- George McCann

George's Top 10 Films of 2013

Just a quick view of my personal favorite films of the year.  This is my opinion; it is completely biased. If you don't agree with the list, cool.  I'm just giving you some insight into my taste in film.  Without further ado, my Top 10 of 2013.

10. 'Gravity' 

9. 'Prisoners'

8. 'The Wolf of Wall Street'

7. 'Fruitvale Station'

6. 'Mud'

5. 'Her'

4. 'Inside Llewyn Davis'

3. 'Out of the Furnace'

2. 'Lone Survivor'

and number one, my favorite film of the year is:

1. 'The Place Beyond The Pines'

'The Place Beyond The Pines' affected me emotionally like no other film I have seen this year or any year.  It is filmmaking at its finest and is an original, bold, emotional, real and beautiful film.  Pines is the type of film that makes people want to become filmmakers and stands as my number one film of 2013.

THE WOLF OF WALL STREET REVIEW

'The Wolf of Wall Street' is the latest film from Director Martin Scorsese and Writer Terence Winter.  The film spans a long period in the life of real life stock broker Jordan Belfort.  Belfort is played flawlessly by Leonardo DiCaprio; give the man an Oscar nomination!  Jordan Belfort begins as a young man with big ambition on Wall Street and becomes a money hungry, power hungry man.  

The true trouble begins when he meets Donnie Azoff, a young man who Belfort partners with and creates his own unorthodox firm.  When the money builds and builds, Belfort begins to embezzle.  The characters in the film are all despicable people but they are so smart and so outrageous, you can't help but be intrigued by them.  They are womanizers, drug addicts and thieves but they are brilliantly written by Terence Winter.  These characters' actions are so ludicrous and crazy, they become remarkably interesting and entertaining to watch. 

This film is also extremely funny.  It is one hundred percent a dark comedy/dramady.  Scorsese hasn't tackled a film of this nature yet and he pretty much nails this one.  The direction is completely on point and fits the style and tone of the time very well.  My one issue with the film is it could have been maybe 5 - 10 minutes shorter.  At a certain point, it started to drag but that's a minor issue.  All in all, 'The Wolf of Wall Street' is a sex filled, drug filled, crime filled comedy unlike anything I've seen this year.

4.75/5

- George McCann