The End

Namaste...

LOST comes to an end tonight.

Not really saddened by this news. The creative forces asked for it to end because they knew what story they wanted to tell. This tells me that the show has always been in good hands and will probably end in a very fulfilling manner. I'm keeping all expectations out of the experience, however.

This show has given viewers a journey unlike anything we've ever seen, and I'm ready to see our characters' story get their finale. The characters have always been at the heart of the show for me. The "mythology" aspects are entertaining and do serve their purpose in helping the story along. But this show is the best show on TV (aka, restored my faith in television) because of the characters and their story.

The laughs and tears along the way have come from them. The heartbreak, sorrow, jubilation, and joy are owed to them.

I don't know what my reaction will be. Frankly, I don't care (provided it's not "That's it!?"). I've always placed faith in the writers, never seriously questioning a single decision they've made. Some say this is my biggest fault in watching this show. That may turn out to be true, but I've always maintained that until it's done and we have the big picture, I'm not in a position to judge/question. Yes, I have both positive and negative emotional reactions to the events in the show. The emotional journey is unparalleled. But I have never interjected a personal vision into the show.

So, with that in mind, I enter the finale with great anticipation but no expectations. I look forward to the last Dharma van ride, accompanied with some Three Dog Night, along this journey. It's been incredible so far. Now let's see what the last 2.5 hours hold...

NOTE: I will be watching the finale tomorrow (for personal reasons), so I will be going "silent" or "off-the-grid" with respect to all forms of communication and electronics. I can and will address it when I've seen it.

In the Loop - An Instant Classic

For those that don't know, I adhere to a strict 24-hour rule when it comes to watching movies. That is, I refuse to form an official opinion regarding the film, given the emotions that result from the immediacy of a viewing. Yes, films are designed to make us feel something, and I'm not saying I'm trying to lose those feelings. I just want to see if they are rather fleeting.

There is something to be said for how we feel immediately after a movie. Some might argue those feelings are more profound and can never be matched. Others argue that the more profound feelings are those we have days, weeks, or even years after we've seen a movie (for the first time).

I don't want to argue the above disagreement. Instead, I was simply explaining a sort of "litmus test" I have for cinema. (Although, that's not really the best description; neither is "barometer," so we'll just move on.)

Well, every so often, a film comes along that doesn't need the 24-hour rule. These films are rarely the terrible ones. (Yes, Tommy, I am talking to you.) To use a borrowed moniker, these are the "instant classics." The Dark Knight was one such film for me. However, since that time in 2008, I haven't really had any films that really didn't require the 24-hour rule. I may have said that about certain films, but I think I was getting carried away with my feelings.

Consider In the Loop (2009) the latest such film. I just recently saw this movie, and it was a riot. I haven't laughed that hard or frequently in quite some time, if ever. I am tempted to say it's the funniest movie I've seen, but I'll grant that that claim should not be definitively spoken/written for some time.

But I do know that this film is a masterpiece, regardless of where it ranks on a list of comedies. It is a British comedy film, satirizing 21st-century politics. More specifically, U.S. and British build-up to a war in the Middle East (think the 2nd Gulf War, aka the Iraq War).

Don't be alarmed by the political themes. It is great comedy in itself and as someone who refuses to come down on either side of the fence regarding the war, I did not ever feel that whatever political message there may be was never in the way of my enjoyment of terrific writing and acting and some of the best one-lines I've ever heard. Comedy came first, as it should. (Feel free to disagree with that last claim, as it is a strong one.)

The only thing one could possibly be alarmed with is the "language." (I hate that term. What makes certain words "language" while the rest are just language?) I never thought it was an issue, probably because I was laughing nonstop. But, if you do have a problem with that, be warned here and now.

I won't speak much to the plot, as there is a fair amount of intrigue, especially near the end. Just know that this is one of the few films to which I will stake my reputation. To quote A.O. Scott (critic at The New York Times, with whom I have my fair share of disagreements):

"The audience, meanwhile, is likely to die laughing. While “In the Loop” is a highly disciplined inquiry into a very serious subject, it is also, line by filthy line, scene by chaotic scene, by far the funniest big-screen satire in recent memory."

Directed by Armando Iannucci; written by Mr. Iannucci, Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell and Tony Roche; released by IFC Films. Running time: 1 hour 46 minutes. This film is not rated.

WITH: Anna Chlumsky (Liza), Chris Addison (Toby), David Rasche (Linton), Gina McKee (Judy), James Gandolfini (General Miller), Mimi Kennedy (Karen), Olivia Poulet (Suzy), Peter Capaldi (Malcolm Tucker), Steve Coogan (Paul Michaelson), Tom Hollander (Simon Foster) and Zach Woods (Chad).

P.S. Here is an excellent clip, although it is very representative of the aforementioned "language" issue.

The Sixteen Year Gap or: The Western Revival

"People are always asking me why they don't make Westerns like they used to."

- Roy Rogers

Heck, I even find myself asking this very question about the past decade or so. For a while, the last great Western was Unforgiven (1992). Tombstone (1993) and Wyatt Earp (1994) are very good films that tried to correct this, but they just do not have the staying power that Eastwood's masterpiece has.

Thankfully, though, the second half of this past decade saw a resurgence of Westerns that are probably some of the best since the early 90s. The year 2007 was especially kind in this regard. That year saw the release of three Westerns that have to be considered amongst this resurgence, mostly due to the fact that they offer a breath of fresh air, some spark of originality.

The three from 2007 that I am referring to are The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Seraphim Falls, and 3:10 to Yuma. These three films have unique visual styles. They have stories that are not only fresh in terms of cinema as a whole but even in their Western genre. (Yes, I took into account that 3:10 to Yuma is a remake.)

These three films also have tremendous casts. The level of acting in Westerns has changed considerably since Leone's "Spaghetti Westerns," and these three films are great illustrations of how it has changed for the better. Plus, Russell Crowe and Liam Neeson are two of my favorite actors, so their presence in any film is bound to elevate the level of the cast in my eyes.

There are many types of Westerns, and two of the most popular types are the Outlaw and the Revisionist Westerns. Jesse James and 3:10 are your Outlaw Westerns. Seraphim Falls has the distinction of being what some call a Revisionist Western, in that the romanticism of the the Traditional Western is bucked for a darker tone that favors elements of realism. (Actually, Jesse James is probably a mix of Outlaw and Revisionist.)

Another Western of the Outlaw/Revisionist mix is Australia's The Proposition (2005). I hate to sound repetitive, but this film stands out for the same reasons as the previous three: a strong cast, a fresh story, and a unique visual style. The Proposition is probably edgier, grittier, and more intense that the above three, which is saying something considering just how violent and rough the previous three are.

Although the Space Western is normally considered more science fiction than western, 2005's Space Western entry Serenity (a continuation of the Fox series Firefly) has always felt more like a Western. Of course, enjoyment of this movie is 5x better if you are familiar with the TV series and 10x better if you have seen Firefly in its entirety (not too difficult considering Fox made one of the worst decisions in television history by canceling it and leaving us with only 14 episodes). Malcolm Reynolds is one of the most enduring characters of all-time, due in large part to terrific writing and the incredible acting of Nathan Fillion. Without a doubt, Serenity joins the other four films as part of the resurgence of good Westerns.

The final film I will mention is also the only Traditional Western of the bunch: Appaloosa (2008). Because it is based on Robert B. Parker's novel of the same name, it is a foregone conclusion that whatever weaknesses the film has are not a result of the writing. It turns out, though, that this film's only weakness is just one cast member (Renee Zellweger). Outside of that, the film tells a story that never loosens its grip on the audience. The dialogue is fantastic, but the more impressive is just how no-frills the story is. The characters are actually at the heart of this story.

Another example of its realistic, no-frills story is that one very important shootout in the movie is over before you even have time to process what has happened. Instead of some elaborate, drawn-out sequence, the story paints a picture of how things like that most likely went down. I was amazed at the power of its brevity, considering the amount of tension that was a part of the set-up. I had never seen anything like that before in any movie, especially a Western.

In my opinion, Appaloosa is one of the new great westerns (despite its previously mentioned flaw). The other five are very good films that have also been a part of the recent resurgence of good, fresh Westerns. Now, why there was a fifteen-year hiatus of good westerns is a mystery to me and a matter of debate between myself and other moviegoers. But at least it isn't a problem we are dealing with currently.

P.S.

v.

On which side of the great debate do you find yourself?