Super 8 is super great!
Okay, I couldn't resist the pun. But the film is great. It excels on a number of levels.
Set in 1979, the story is about a group of kids who are shooting a DIY horror flick. One night, they sneak out of their houses at midnight to film at the local train station. As they are filming, they witness the local science teacher run his car into an oncoming train, causing a massive train wreck. The kids barely survive the experience and soon find out that the teacher wasn't trying to kill himself, he was trying to free something on the train. Something particularly nasty. And the worst part about it, the teacher was successful. A monster is let loose in the town, and chaos begins.
The film works as really good fright film. It also works as an homage to the works of Steven Spielberg (who produced the film). It also works as a display of the love of film making and the technical aspects that go into it.
J.J. Abrams knows how to work the camera and manipulate the audiences. The film is scary with out being overly gory. It gets its shocks from lulling the audience into expecting one thing and then delivering another. Abrams also uses a trick that Spielberg employed in Jaws when he only gives us a full view of the monster when he absolutely has to. Typically, he keeps the monster in the shadows, showing only the after effects of his carnage. This increases suspense and keeps the audience on its toes.
The film is a love letter to early Spielberg in other ways too. From the types of shots he uses, to the way he celebrates small town/suburban life, to the way he keeps an emotional core in all of his films, all of that Abrams uses in this film. And he does a fine job of it.
And the film is also a display of the love of film making. The kids are so passionate about the film they are creating that they are willing to risk anything for it--death, dismemberment, grounding--to get it finished. This allows the film to act as a meta commentary on itself. When the director of the film< Charles (Riley Griffiths) tells our lead, Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) that he is introducing the detective's wife into the film because that will make the audience care about the zombie film's characters more, we are reminded that we are watching a young man in Joe Lamb who is still grieving from the loss of his mother months prior. And because we feel for his sorrow, we care about him more.
The acting is top notch all the way through. Instead of going the superstar route, Abrams when with solid actors with a modicum of being recognizable. Since he has actors who are able to disappear in the role, this draws the audience in. And actors like Kyle Chandler can tell more of a story with his facial expression after an argument than most actors can with pages of dialogue.
The film is set in 1979 by design. In the present day, in a world of smart phone that can shoot video, and digital recorders that can film faster and more immediate than Super 8 film, the story would not have time to develop as it does. Back in the dark ages of the late 70s, when a rush film development job took three days, you have more time for the subplots and chaos to develop. They stay pretty close to period, with some anachronisms here and there (one of the kids references a Rubik's Cube when the toy hadn't arrived on American shores until the next year and didn't become a crazy until a year or two after) but the tone they create is palpable and real.
There are some unanswered questions we are meant to suspend belief on (like how the science teacher, even considering he might have military connections, know that the monster was going to be transported on THAT train at THAT time). But all in all, the film is a great movie. And one you should go see,
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Sunday, July 3, 2011
My Ruminations About the Possible 2012 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Candidates.
It's been a while since I blogged about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but that doesn't mean I am any less fascinated by it. We are still a couple months away from the nominations, but I thought I'd be proactive and rant about it now.
What makes the the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame so fascinating--what makes all Hall of Fame fascinating--is not who's in but who's not in and why.
If you judge strictly buy the name, any musical act that has sold a certain number of albums and has a certain number of fans in their fan club should be in the Rock Hall. But it isn't truly about "fame". The Rock Hall organizers say acts need to be "influential" and "innovative" to be inducted the Hall. They also ignore these qualifications almost immediately. Because you don't get much more influential or innovative than Rush and KISS, Peter Gabriel or The Replacements, the Red Hot Chili Peppers or Beastie Boys, yet none of them are in the hall. Few have even made the nomination short list.
The Rock Hall has been in remedial housecleaning mode the last few years. The five inductees last year--Alice Cooper, Neil Diamond, Darlene Love, Dr. John and Tom Waits--have had an average wait on the eligibility list of 16.8 years. That's over a decade and a half wait to get in. Waits had it fairly easy. He only had to wait 11 years. Diamond and Love were on the waiting list for 21 years!
This is another irksome quality about the Hall of Fame--the hierarchy of the hall induction. If you are a special artist, maybe, maybe, you'll get in on your first year of eligibility. If not, you'll have to wait until they deem you worthy of entry. The Baseball Hall of Fame does the same thing. You hear baseball writers say "He's not good enough to be a first ballot Hall of Famer. Maybe next year." I figure if he worthy of being in the Hall of Fame at all, he worthy of being in the Hall on the first try. But that's just me.
It seems silly to call out any Hall of Fame as being too elitist--it is a Hall of Fame after all. But the Rock Hall is especially elitist. The nomination board is composed mostly of rock journalists, pretentious group that they are, and music executives who let their biases speak for themselves. I've seen a quote from one board member, it might have been Rolling Stone's Anthony DeCurtis, where he said he'd rather die than vote for KISS. That's nice.
It doesn't help that while they nominate eleven acts, they only elect five. This does create a false air of prestige for induction to the Hall, but pretty much guarantees that every year some worthy acts are left out.
This is the list of possible eligibles for 2011-2012 from Future Rock Legends.com:
The size of the font indicate who visitors to the site think have the best chance of being inducted into the Hall. Arguably, Guns 'N Roses does have the best chance to get a nomination, with perhaps Soundgarden as a longshot. Eric B. and Rakim are deserving, the Hall is a couple years behind on inducting rap stars into the Hall. They'll have to get in line behind Beastie Boys and LL Cool J.
So, this year should be another housekeeping year. Will those two make it in? Will Rush finally get nominated? We'll find out in the fall.
What makes the the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame so fascinating--what makes all Hall of Fame fascinating--is not who's in but who's not in and why.
If you judge strictly buy the name, any musical act that has sold a certain number of albums and has a certain number of fans in their fan club should be in the Rock Hall. But it isn't truly about "fame". The Rock Hall organizers say acts need to be "influential" and "innovative" to be inducted the Hall. They also ignore these qualifications almost immediately. Because you don't get much more influential or innovative than Rush and KISS, Peter Gabriel or The Replacements, the Red Hot Chili Peppers or Beastie Boys, yet none of them are in the hall. Few have even made the nomination short list.
The Rock Hall has been in remedial housecleaning mode the last few years. The five inductees last year--Alice Cooper, Neil Diamond, Darlene Love, Dr. John and Tom Waits--have had an average wait on the eligibility list of 16.8 years. That's over a decade and a half wait to get in. Waits had it fairly easy. He only had to wait 11 years. Diamond and Love were on the waiting list for 21 years!
This is another irksome quality about the Hall of Fame--the hierarchy of the hall induction. If you are a special artist, maybe, maybe, you'll get in on your first year of eligibility. If not, you'll have to wait until they deem you worthy of entry. The Baseball Hall of Fame does the same thing. You hear baseball writers say "He's not good enough to be a first ballot Hall of Famer. Maybe next year." I figure if he worthy of being in the Hall of Fame at all, he worthy of being in the Hall on the first try. But that's just me.
It seems silly to call out any Hall of Fame as being too elitist--it is a Hall of Fame after all. But the Rock Hall is especially elitist. The nomination board is composed mostly of rock journalists, pretentious group that they are, and music executives who let their biases speak for themselves. I've seen a quote from one board member, it might have been Rolling Stone's Anthony DeCurtis, where he said he'd rather die than vote for KISS. That's nice.
It doesn't help that while they nominate eleven acts, they only elect five. This does create a false air of prestige for induction to the Hall, but pretty much guarantees that every year some worthy acts are left out.
This is the list of possible eligibles for 2011-2012 from Future Rock Legends.com:
The size of the font indicate who visitors to the site think have the best chance of being inducted into the Hall. Arguably, Guns 'N Roses does have the best chance to get a nomination, with perhaps Soundgarden as a longshot. Eric B. and Rakim are deserving, the Hall is a couple years behind on inducting rap stars into the Hall. They'll have to get in line behind Beastie Boys and LL Cool J.
So, this year should be another housekeeping year. Will those two make it in? Will Rush finally get nominated? We'll find out in the fall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)