What Does the Title “Prisoners” Mean? ***THIS WILL SPOIL THE ENTIRE FILM IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT***

Over the weekend I saw the film “Prisoners” twice.  This is NOT a happy, uplifting film.  This is a film about two children who are kidnapped on Thanksgiving Day in broad daylight.  So why did I see it twice?  Why did I put myself through that intense, brutal emotion?  The answer is because I couldn’t NOT see the film again.

“Prisoners” has a simple premise: kidnapping.  The premise is simple, yes, but the film is far from it; a major reason being the main characters and what they represent:

Keller Dover: 

Played flawlessly by Hugh Jackman, is a father trying to find his daughter; simple?  No.  Keller IS a father BUT he is also incredibly flawed and in my eyes disturbed.  Something haunts this man.  Something haunted this man way before his daughter was taken.  It could have been his father’s suicide but I feel it is more than just that.  Keller’s past haunts him.  He is an alcoholic although it is only spoke of in two lines in the film.  He is also a violent man.  The film begs the question, was the violence brought out due to a horrible situation OR was it coming inevitably?  That I do not know, but it is a question and I do wonder.  Was this man always haunted by violence OR was it this due to this terrible ordeal?  My inclination is his anger and violence came out do this terrible, violent ordeal.  That being said, there is/was darkness in Keller Dover and no one had to point it out to us (the audience).  All of this came out organically through story, something not often seen nowadays. 

So, Keller Dover was disturbed, was violent and was prepared for anything.  One of his first lines in the film is to his son, saying something to the effect of: the best thing your grandfather taught me was always be prepared.  Oil goes dry, no food in the grocery stores.  People turn on each other.  Keller was prepared.  He was prepared for everything as his basement shows.  He is stocked for the apocalypse with guns, ammunition, food, water, a gas mask and many other things.  This man was prepared for anything and everything, accept what happened to his family, what happened to his daughter.  He wasn’t prepared for her to be taken.  He couldn’t be.  No one could.  This is a horror no parent expects or can imagine and Keller wasn’t prepared but he did turn on people.  As he stated in that line, HE turned on people. 

I think in many ways Keller turned into whatever he despised or was running from.  Keller went from victim father, to perpetrator kidnapper.  When the police let a suspect go due to lack of evidence Keller Dover becomes a man obsessed.  He becomes so obsessed he tortures, starves and beats a man with the IQ of a 10 year old.  So, did the victim remain the victim or become the perpetrator or both?  I say, both.

Detective Loki:

The best performance I’ve ever seen from Jake Gyllenhaal.  It is stated very early in the film that Loki has a 100% success rate.  He saves people.  A lot of people had issues with Loki’s eye twitch.  I found it very, very interesting because ever time Loki twitches, it is an intense or important scene.  There is brief mention that Loki was in a boys home… is that why he has the twitch?  Every time Detective Loki was in a scene I couldn’t help but focus on the pain behind his eyes.  Was Loki hurt as a child, kidnapped, molested?  I tend to think so.  He is SO focused, he doesn’t sleep.  He doesn’t have a family.  After all, the first time we meet him is Thanksgiving night and he is eating dinner at a Chinese food restaurant ALONE.

When Loki works this case, when he interrogates suspects, you see it in his eyes.  He is NOT okay.  This is a damaged man.  This is a hurting man and this is another man who is obsessed.  He is obsessed with helping find people who were hurt.  Does this represent his past the way the violence represents Keller’s?  I think so.  Loki goes to the home of a suspect to talk to their aunt.  The suspect is the man with the IQ of a 10 year old who Keller kidnaps.  In the man’s possessions, Loki finds a toy car.  This seems like nothing in that scene, but later it is not.  When the case for the girls goes cold after a suspect who may have the girls dies, Loki goes to his desk, smashes everything on it and we once again see that toy.  He takes that toy and like a child pushes it back and forth, once again the pain behind his eyes.  This man is as damaged as Keller but for very different reasons. 

In the end of the film, the man Keller tortured turns out to be a drugged kidnapped man himself.  So lost, so drugged, he now has the IQ of a 10 year old boy.  That man did lead Keller to his daughter’s kidnapper but instead of trusting the police, Keller took matters into his own hands and winds up in a hole, with a bullet in his leg, still without his daughter.  Loki finds the kidnapper and saves Keller’s daughter.  The last scene of the film is Loki and the police at the kidnapper’s home casing the ground because numerous children had been kidnapped over time.  As it begins to snow and the ground goes cold, the police leave.  We, the audience know Keller is in a hole - not fifty feet from Loki with a whistle but Loki, does not.  The lights go out and the wind picks up.  There is a faint whistle blow.  Loki looks around and decides it’s the wind.  This happens twice more and then the whistle blows loud.  Loki looks to the direction of the hole and the screen blacks out and the word PRISONERS appears.

In my eyes, the word PRISONERS appearing shows that every character in the film is a prisoner.  The girls were prisoners to their captors.  Keller was a prisoner to his violence and his past and Loki was a prisoner to his past and his obsession to his work.  They are all prisoners to something….

The film asks us, what are we prisoners to?

    

     - George McCann

PRISONERS Review

PRISONERS REVIEW

“Prisoners” is a new film from director, Denis Villeneuve and is written by Aaron Guzikowski.  This film tells the story of two families, the Dover family and the Birch family.  These two families are meeting for Thanksgiving dinner, when their two youngest daughters step outside and go missing.  When these two girls go missing, Detective Loki is called in to head the investigation (played brilliantly by Jake Gyllenhaal).  There is an intense drive for Loki to find these girls that goes beyond the normal police officer.  When the case begins to go cold, Keller Dover played by Hugh Jackman considers taking matters into his own hands.  This film is a gut punch of emotion.   Hugh Jackman portrays a distraught, angry, disturbed father uncomfortably well.  As for Gyllenhaal, he steals the show.  There is an intensity that goes beyond the surface.  His eyes are mixed with full force outward emotion and anger, an Oscar worthy performance and my favorite of the year.  Also, Terrence Howard, Maria Bello, Viola Davis, Paul Dano and Melissa Leo all give great supporting performances.  Roger Deakins’ cinematography is beautiful and haunting.  The writing and direction is top notch; you never know where this story is going to go.  For a film that could easily have been very generic, this film is not.  “Prisoners” is one of the best films I have seen this year BUT it is intense and disturbing, so be aware of that before entering the theater.  This film is worthy of MAJOR Oscar consideration and wins.  If you can handle the subject matter, see “Prisoners”.

   

    - George McCann

The Glory of “Glory”

***SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN “GLORY”***

There are some films that make such an impact, they can never be duplicated. “Glory” is one of those films.  For those of you who may not be familiar, “Glory” is the story of the first black company in U.S. military history.  The 54^th Infantry was formed during the Civil War and was a volunteer company; but enough with the history lesson.  Edward Zwick directed “Glory” and it, in my opinion, is one of the most important films of all time.

“Glory” is such an important and amazing film for many reasons.  One that resonates with me is the fact that it pulls no punches.  Although the film does take some historical liberties, it does not portray the North as “the good guys” in the Civil War.  The film shows the honest truth; there were just as many racists in the North as in the South. This was a brave step for Zwick to take.  It would have been very easy to portray the North as “the good guys” - the people fighting for justice, a righteous cause.  The simple fact is not everyone in the North was good and righteous and for the film to point that out, gave it great credibility. 

“Glory” is a very emotional film.  We see a small glimpse of what some of these men went through up until this point, (joining the 54^th).  Denzel Washington gives, in my opinion, the best supporting performance from an actor ever.  His character is a man filled with rage and anger and why wouldn’t he be angry after what life has put him through?  The beauty of his character is we see his anger, but we also see his heart.  It is never one sided and it is never forced.  The places these men went and the hardships they went through just to get a pair of shoes are heartbreaking.  One scene always stands out to me. It is a scene with one tear; when that one tear drops, so do our hearts.

Although there is clearly anger in the men of the 54^th, there is even more heart.  Morgan Freeman’s character gives a perspective that adds so much to the film.  He is the man who says what is what and who is who, but never in an obnoxious way.  The character is always honest and always brave and possibly the core of the infantry men of the 54^th in the film.  Freeman has a scene with Washington that makes your hair stand up.  That scene changes Washington’s character for the rest of the film.  That scene also shows the morals and code that Freeman’s character has lived by and continues to live by throughout the film.

When you think of historical films, you don’t think of the lead actor as the guy from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” but it is.  Matthew Broderick stars as “Colonel Robert Shaw” (a real man).  Let me end any doubt in anyone’s mind, Matthew Broderick was amazing in the film.  Colonel Shaw started the 54^th and brought these men together and that changed history. 

In a film that lives in a grey area, Shaw is flat out a good man.  The men of the 54^th were good men.  It was the rest of the world that needed to get on board. 

In the climax of the film a formerly bigoted character says “Give ‘em hell 54^th” as the regiment marches to a certain death.  When those words are spoken, I always get the feeling that some of the world has gotten on board.  Maybe not everyone… but that line from that character says, there is hope.

The definition of the word glory is praise, honor or distinction by common consent.  That is also the definition of the film “Glory”.  This film is a true story of truly glorious men who died trying to do something honorable and dignified.  The men of the 54^th deserve that dignity and “Glory” is truly a glorious film.

To the soldiers of the 54^th Maine, thank you.

-  George McCann

Why Steven Spielberg is the Greatest Living Director

There is one director who I believe will go down as the greatest director of all time; his name is Steven Spielberg.  Spielberg is truly a master of his craft in every way.  The man knows how to not only tell a story through visuals but he knows how to make you feel like you are IN that story.  When I watch films like “ JAWS”, “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial”, “The Indiana Jones Trilogy”, “Schindler’s List”, “Saving Private Ryan” and “Hook”, I feel like I am in that film with those characters.  I am with them through every laugh, heartbreak and challenge they must face.  This truly is the mark and stamp of an amazing director.

In Hollywood there are tons of great, truly talented directors but there is something about stepping into the theater to watch a Spielberg film that is extremely different compared to sitting down to watch a film from any other director in the industry.  I think this man was just born with a gift that had to be shared with the rest of the world.  His films transcend the imagination. You are there.  Something I find very interesting about Spielberg’s work as well, is the fact that every single film he has made has re-watch value, some more than others but all of them have it.  Even if you look at “Saving Private Ryan” or “Schindler’s List”, it may not be a fun visit to go back to those films but people do, for the historical importance as well as the masterful filmmaking. 

Look at “Schindler’s List”.  In that film, all the choices made in production were so impactful; for example, the choice to shoot the film in black and white or the one scene of color with the red dress.  These choices could easily have never come up in production.  The film could have been filmed in color but it would have had much less of an impact.  The film is SO emotional and SO impactful and SO amazing that we need to watch it now and again so we don’t forget, so no one forgets.  I think that is a gift from Mr. Spielberg.  He showed harsh truths in a brilliant film and now schools show the film in history classes. 

The other film in that same vein would be “Saving Private Ryan”.  “Ryan” takes the viewer out of their seats and transports them to Normandy for 3 hours.  We experience D-Day as close as one can, who wasn’t there firsthand.  This is a tremendous feat for a director to accomplish and another history lesson from Mr. Spielberg.

Another thing I find fascinating about this man is the way he can jump from genre to genre.  The man has worked in Sci-fi, Drama, Horror, Action/Adventure, Family and Animation and done it all with ease and grace, which is astonishing.  I can’t think of another director in history to jump from genre to genre that way and excel with success. 

I have gone to this topic in many of my articles and it seems to be a common theme and that is story.  I think Spielberg always goes with story first.  Look at the man’s resume. It is very far and few in-between to see a film that doesn’t have an amazing story.  This may be what is so very different about Spielberg compared to other directors working today.  Nothing and I mean NOTHING this man directs, lacks passion.  To be honest, it is the exact opposite. His films ooze passion.

 “JAWS” is a great example of passion and perseverance for the craft of filmmaking.  There were tremendous production difficulties with the filming of “JAWS”.   There was a pesky character on set named Bruce who didn’t always cooperate. (Bruce was the mechanical Shark, for those of you who may not know.) Anyhow, this damn Shark malfunctioned left and right.  Due to all the technical issues with the shark, Spielberg and production decided to not show the shark and that decision, that bold move, made “JAWS” so much more frightening.  We have the fear of the unknown. What is below our feet as we swim?  These are the types of things that Mr. Spielberg comes up with that make him both an innovator and a master of his craft.  Not to mention his remarkable execution.

Let’s jump ahead to the year 1981, shall we?  That year, we got the adventure film that defined adventure, “Raiders of the Lost Ark”.  The use of practical effects in “Raiders”, as well as heart and story made the film a genre of its own.  It is a genre that will never be repeated, a film that can never be topped.  This is the power of a master at the top of their game.

In 1993, we were handed “Jurassic Park” on a silver platter - a film that changed the way the world looked at special effects.  “Jurassic Park” is yet another film that transports the audience to another world.  This is the way of Spielberg, transporting rather than just entertaining.  Yet, he never sacrifices story or substance for beautiful scenery and “Wow Factor”.  He earns “Wow Factor” through story first and the rest falls into place on its own.

Steven Spielberg will go down as the greatest director of all time because he transports.  The man puts the audience in a time machine and sends them to the past, future or someplace not existing in the present.  The talent this man has is immeasurable and the best may still be yet to come because when you have a master, you never know what card they will pull next.  I, for one, can’t wait to see what it is because if I need a history lesson or a trip to the future, Mr. Steven Spielberg is always there to open the door.

 For that, Sir, I salute you.

  - George McCann

Why Ben Affleck Should NOT Direct a Batman Film

So, last week Ben Affleck was cast as Batman in the upcoming “Man of Steel” sequel.  Now, I personally love Affleck as the choice to play Batman/Bruce Wayne.  I believe Ben Affleck has come a long way in his career and is, at this point, a great actor.  Over time, people grow as artists and, generally, as human beings.  However, that isn’t entirely what I want to talk about.  While everyone is talking about Affleck playing Batman, I want to talk about why he shouldn’t direct a Batman spin-off of any form. 

I feel that Affleck really came into his own after he directed “Gone Baby Gone”.  Personally, I feel Affleck’s work on that film made him a better actor and proved he was a great director.  When we all were blown away with his second directorial effort “The Town”, in which he also starred; he essentially said I’m here to stay and this is what I can do.  Then at last year’s Academy Awards, he was snubbed for best Director but won his second Oscar.  He now has a Screenwriting Oscar and the Award for Best Picture for his work Producing “ARGO”.  Ben Affleck is a star in front and behind the camera; that is a fact.

So with the news of Affleck being cast as Batman, there has been speculation by many that he may want to direct a Batman spin-off film.  Now, while I really like the choice of Affleck playing Batman, I HATE the chance of him directing a Batman film and it’s not because he wouldn’t direct the film well.  His track record has shown the guy can direct the daylights out of a film.  The reason is because of the type of films he has directed - “Gone Baby Gone”, “The Town” and “ARGO”.  I feel his wheelhouse is gritty, realistic and, dare I say, more artistic films… character driven films. 

At one point there was news that the rights to “Bunker Hill: A City, a Siege, a Revolution”, a book by Nathaniel Philbrick based on the Battle of Bunker Hill during The Revolutionary War was picked up and passed to Chris Terrio, to pen the screenplay.  For those of you who may not know, Terrio wrote the screenplay for “ARGO”.  “Bunker Hill” is another film that takes place in Affleck’s beloved city of Boston.  It would be a film that I would LOVE to see him direct.  It would be fantastic to see a great Revolutionary War film.  If Terrio is writing, a man who works extremely well with history (“ARGO” was a true story) and Affleck is directing, the movie could be a film for the ages.

Yet another film Affleck has in the works right now is “Live By Night” which is based on a book by Dennis Lehane, the author of “Gone Baby Gone”, Affleck’s directorial debut.  The film adaptation of “Live By Night” will be written, directed and produced by Affleck and he will also be acting in the movie.  The story takes place in Prohibition Era Boston during the roaring 20s.  This is another story that sounds like it would be right in Ben Affleck’s wheelhouse and a bull’s-eye considering what he did with “Gone Baby Gone” for which he also had a screenwriting credit.

What I am getting at is this; although I think Affleck is a tremendous talent, I feel he thrives in certain areas of filmmaking and that is dramatic character studies.  There is not much of that in Hollywood right now with the Superhero Generation of film.  So, I REALLY don’t like the possibility of one of the best young directors who thrives in character studies, jumping to direct a Superhero film.  Let Joss Whedon and Zack Snyder stick to that.  In a day and age where we get less and less character and less and less depth, do we want Ben Affleck, one of the best talents at giving us character and depth, stepping out of that genre? 

- George McCann

Life and Death of the Western Genre

Once upon a time there was a genre of film called the Western.  The Western genre was HUGE in the 40s, slowed down in the late 60s, and virtually came to a halt in the late 70s .  When the Western was in its prime, we had amazing directors like Howard Hawks and John Ford.  I give credit to these two men (especially Ford) for giving the audience locations to marvel, stories to dazzle and direction to influence future directors, such as Sergio Leone.

It seems that the time of the Western, in the 40s – 50s, was a simpler time.  We knew who was good.  We knew who was bad and we knew what we were in for - a great adventure across the western frontier at the movies.  When Westerns ruled the screen, things were simple.  The stories were tales of grandeur.  We were served stories about life - working, fighting, grazing; stories of justice and injustice, yet it was not complex. 

Today everything is more complicated both in the real world and on the screen but why can’t we go to the movies and just see Gary Cooper protect his town like in Fred Zinnemann’s classic, 'High Noon' or watch John Wayne try to protect his family after the Civil War in John Ford’s masterpiece 'The Searchers'?  Why is everything so complicated?  Here’s the only logic I can come up with.

In the mid 60s, an Italian director came along named Sergio Leone.  The man was a great director and he revived the Western with 'A Fistful of Dollars', 'For a Few Dollars More' and 'The Good the Bad and the Ugly'.   The films would later be known as, 'The Dollars Trilogy'.  They single handedly launched the career of Clint Eastwood.  As the Western was dying in the United States, Sergio Leone took it to Italy.  These films coined the phrase “The Spaghetti Western”.  I don’t know if Leone did this intentionally but his films are what started making Westerns more complicated (along with the changing times).  As 'The Dollars Trilogy' progressed, the filmmaking evolved as well as the stories.  The films introduced The Man with No Name.  The lead character in all three of the films (played by Eastwood) never had a name thus raising more questions and asking more of the audience and the genre became less simple.  The trilogy blurred the lines of good and bad.  We had an antihero, a game changer.  Westerns were no longer simple.  You had to think a bit more, evaluate and form an opinion. Things were no longer black and white.  Some people would say this was revolutionary in many ways.  I would agree but it was so revolutionary that there weren’t many Westerns after the trilogy to have a simple hero.  The simplicity was lost and it changed the Western genre and it changed film. 

After 'The Dollars Trilogy', Leone did one more Western, hailed as one of the greatest of all time - 'Once Upon A Time in the West'.  'Once Upon A Time in the West' did two things; one, solidified that there is no simplicity in the west; and two, and possibly more revolutionary, took a well known actor, who had never played a villain in his life and put him in the most evil role possible.  The actor was Henry Fonda.  Without Henry Fonda playing Frank, things might have been very different for a very long time.  Fonda’s choice to play an evil character and Leone’s choice to cast him changed the future of Westerns.

In 1973, Actor/Director Clint Eastwood stepped onto the stage full force with 'High Plains Drifter'.  The film took literally everything anyone knew about the Western and flipped it with the lead character being less of an antihero and more of a villain.  A bold move for Eastwood but one that proved he was here to stay and he was here to change the genre… forever.  Eastwood had done other directing work with 'Play Misty for Me' but this was his first shot at directing the West and it paid off.  It paid off big.  'High Plains Drifter' is an intense, violent and disturbing tale of the West but it is good.  It is REALLY good.  After 'Drifter', Eastwood’s next directional Western was 'The Outlaw Josey Wales', a film that is immensely close to Eastwood and, dare I say, his best Western.  'Josey' said a TON about society.  The film was and is possibly one of the most accurate films about what soldiers did to homesteaders during the Civil War and it is the first scene in the film.  The tone is set and off you go.  'The Outlaw Josey Wales' is Eastwood’s Western masterpiece and was way ahead of its time. 

So, as you can see, as time went by, Western’s evolved.  In 1990, after a long halt, the Western tried to make a comeback with 'Dances with Wolves', the story of the horrifying acts that took place on the plains.  We saw what United States soldiers did to the Native American people.  It is an amazing film and Kevin Costner earned his Oscars but the film made people uncomfortable with the West.  Then in 1992, 'Unforgiven' was released, another Eastwood film and probably the truest tale of the darkness of the West - no beauty, just honesty, very similar to 'Wolves' in that sense.  After the honesty in those films, the genre died.  I think people had seen enough of the West and wanted to leave the past in the past.  With these films, the illusion of the West was gone.  The glory and grandeur was lost.  Folks would never look at another Western the same way.  They would see only the brutality instead of the beauty.  That being said, the West had heroes and villains, violence and heroics.  If the hero were still shown along with the villain, would the Western still be in theaters today?  Would people be at the box office or would the Western still remain a part of cinema’s past?

       

        - George McCann

Horror Films, What Gets It Right?

The point of a horror film is to scare you and there was a time when horror films were amazing, “The Exorcist”, “The Omen” (1976), “The Shining”, “Psycho” and “Halloween”.  These are films that set up a story with characters you care about with whom you are invested.  The task is met through story and characters. 

Look at “Halloween”.  The back-story of Michael Myers, as well as the character of Dr. Sam Loomis (played brilliantly by Donald Pleasence) creates both intrigue as well as atmosphere.  We get great lore and that lore gives us connection.  It is a damn scary film and a fantastic achievement.  The film was made on a low budget and had a limited time to shoot.  John Carpenter made a classic horror film and his score will bring chills down your spine all on its own.

If you want to talk about another truly scary film look at “The Omen”.   One of the most fascinating and scary things about that film is the unknown.  That film has the truest tone and sense of the unknown possibly in horror film history.  This is a film that doesn’t rely on jump scares or blood or even violence when you think about it.   It simply relies on the fear of the unknown… the “what ifs”, so to speak, and at the same time we care enough about the Thorn family to be invested.  The audience is also wondering about the photographer character, Jennings, who for a good part of the film we know nothing about…again, the unknown.  These are some of the tools that make for great horror and why “The Omen” is a classic that still holds up.  The last frame is one of the scariest things I have ever seen on film.

Now, let’s look at “The Shining”.  In “The Shining”, we have a family, the supernatural and insanity.  If that isn’t a setting for an awesome horror film, what is? The thing about “The Shining” that makes it SO damn scary is we care about the Torrance’s and we not only watch Jack deteriorate but we watch his family deteriorate with him.  The supernatural combined with the setting of The Overlook Hotel in the middle of nowhere, adds terror.   When that film ends, you are left with an unsettling feeling… a feeling of something being off so to speak.  The same can be said for “The Exorcist” and all the other films I listed up top.  After watching these “true horror” types of films, you are legitimately scared.  You get in your car and it creaks and the sound leaves you unsettled.  You might not sleep so tight. 

In my eyes, half the battle with horror films (or any films for that matter) is having a character or characters to care for; this is the main task of filmmaking.  That’s what is lacking the most in horror, the connection to the stakes and to the characters.  You can easily have high stakes in a horror film but if I don’t care about any of the characters then I’m not going to care if they live or die, get away or get possessed.  I need to care.

In 2013, there aren’t many horror films that that leave a lingering effect and make you care and connect to the characters.  It seems the horror genre has become about making a quick buck in October.  The art of truly evoking emotion, both in connection to the characters as well as scaring the daylights out of you has been lost like a leaf blowing off a tree on a cool October day.

-George McCann