William Morris, Author at In The Mood For Film

Hereditary: Horror at its Peak

Published on October 4, 2018 in Reviews by William Morris

Modern-day horror movies have seen a turn for the worse in recent years. While certainly not ALL horror movies in recent years should be dismissed, a majority of them are either studio cash-grabs or are found among the straight-to-video movies deep in your Netflix feed. There is certainly a level of entertainment value that these types of horror movies hold, and they have their place. Most horror films have turned into what seems like a haunted house. The film will follow characters through certain events and will play really loud noises together with a sudden image or action to get you to jump in your seat. You then go about your life and never really think of the experience again. I am of course referring to films such as Truth or Dare, Happy Death Day, The Bye Bye Man et al. But every so often a horror movie is found in the midst of these cookie-cutter films that truly floors you. That movie this year is, of course, Hereditary.

Directed by Ari Aster and starring an Oscar-worthy performance given by Toni Collette, this is the greatest horror film to come out since The Shining. The story centers around a family of four dealing with the loss of their grandmother. The film opens with the funeral of the deceased grandmother where Annie (Collette) notices a few unknown faces in attendance. This is just the first of many strange occurrences. Their young daughter starts to exhibit aberrant behavior, like cutting off a bird’s head with a pair of scissors. Annie slowly loses her mind (or does she?) and seeks out some unconventional methods to help her cope with her loss, which is not without its consequences. Aster is bold in his construction of the narrative; he definitely separates this film from your conventional horror story. Describing what happens beyond the first thirty minutes of the film would be giving too much away, and that says a lot for a two-hour film.

I have never seen a movie tackle the horrors of losing a loved one as audaciously as this one. It effectively blends reality with the supernatural. The consequences that actions have on posterity are scrutinized. I draw the comparison to Kubrick’s The Shining because like Hereditary, it accomplishes the task of leaving one leg in a reality much like ours, but allows just enough room for the supernatural to creep in. Both are also able to effectively display the horrors that surround the slow destruction of a family. The way that Aster is able to keep you on edge throughout the entire film by withholding any jump scares and loud music to break the tension is masterful, and is comparable to how Kubrick handled the tension in The Shining. Watching a family deal with grief and anger to the point of resentment has never been so frightening. But more than all of this, the film continues to haunt those who give into it. The underlying themes and frightening images stay with you long after its viewing. That is not something that your average horror film is able to accomplish.

Hereditary is like the kind of haunted house that will follow you home, so to speak. It is not a place that you go to get your jump-scare fix and then simply go back to your day-to-day life completely unaffected. This film stays with you. It lingers long after you leave the theater and begs you to further discover what lies below its surface. With a truly stunning performance from Toni Collette and confident direction from Ari Aster, along with one of the most intense and uneasy endings, Hereditary is a must-see that will leave you speechless as the credits roll.

A Unique Take on the Humanity of Christ

Published on April 1, 2018 in Reviews by William Morris

The stories of Christ have been told from many different points of view and are generally based on the limited source material we have of His life. For many, He is the most important person to walk the earth in human history. One would hope that we would have more than a mere handful of detailed moments of His ministry. Because of this, films with Christ as the lead role tend to repeat themselves time and time again, telling the same stories of the miracles, crucifixion and resurrection. But what about the parts of Christ’s life that aren’t written down? What kinds of things would He say or how would He act in situations of which we have no record of? This is where filmmakers really get to use their imagination and fill in the gaps.

Directed by Rodrigo García, Last Days in the Desert stars Ewan McGregor as both Jesus and Devil. The film opens with Christ on his journey back from the desert where he has just fasted for forty days. He seems somewhat lost as he makes his way back to Jerusalem and stumbles on a family who He asks for water and directions. The family consists of a father, (Ciarán Hinds) a mother, (Ayelet Zurer) and a son (Tye Sheridan), all of whom remain nameless throughout the film. The son offers to take Jesus in to rest as he seems tired and weak. To return the favor, Jesus offers to help them build a new house that they have been working on. The rest of the film takes place in this small spot in the desert where Jesus is caught in between this family’s conflict and tries to help resolve their issues.

The mother is terminally ill, and the father and son are at odds with each other. The son is tired of living in the desert and wants to move to Jerusalem, or in other words, he is more of a city boy. The father has moved the family out to the desert because of all of the corruption and sin in the city and wants to shelter his family. He also thinks the desert is the only place where one can see his true self because its ruthlessness strips everything away. This statement possibly alludes to the reason as to why Jesus chose the desert as the place to “discover His true self.” For the rest of the film’s runtime, Jesus attempts to play therapist and sort out their differences and help mend their relationship, all while He is constantly nagged and provoked by the Devil himself.

This film is not your average take on the biblical stories of Christ. Here, Jesus is depicted as a young, soft-spoken rabbi/carpenter who has not yet begun his ministry. The family has no idea who He is beyond the fact that he is a religious man. The attempt to humanize Christ is successful on every level. There are no sermons, miracles, or mentions of His ministry or mission. The end of the film briefly cuts to His crucifixion and burial with no scene or reference to His resurrection. The Devil is humanized at the same time through conversations with Jesus. One scene in particular is one of the more interesting moments. Jesus and the Devil have a calm and civil conversation about God and gives some perspective on the Devil’s point of view. The depiction of the Devil is just as human as the depiction of Christ, from his demeanor to his appearance.

The film is not without its flaws, however. There are a couple dream sequences that don’t amount to anything. I am all for ambiguity and symbolism, but I found it hard to see why they were necessary. The performances from everyone were noteworthy, but the story did seem to drag at times as there is nothing really exciting or riveting that happens in the film. The last shot of the movie was also bothersome because it feels completely irrelevant and out of left field in context with the rest of the film. I would love to hear a director’s commentary as to why he chose to place that scene in the film because it is beyond me.

All that said, I think this is a unique take on Christ and García should be commended for imagining an entire segment of Christ’s life. He successfully humanizes the character of Christ in a way that most biblical films have not. If you want to experience a more intimate and human side to Christ, this will do the trick. This film is not meant to convert or even strengthen one’s faith in Christianity, but is an objective take on the humanity of the savior and redeemer of the world. This may not be the best movie to celebrate the Easter holiday. But when you want to shake things up a bit, this is worth putting on your list. Happy Easter.

The Art of Exposition

Published on February 2, 2018 in Essays by William Morris

Exposition often reveals a lot about a director’s confidence in his or her audience, as well as in themselves. After I finished reading Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, I have been thinking about exposition more intensely. After comparing it to the film, I realized just how differently the story could have been told on the big screen. The film essentially follows the plot and story of the book but without any narration or characters explaining just what in the world is going on. For someone who saw the movie before reading the book, the last 20 minutes of that film had me completely lost: how was I supposed to interpret what I was seeing? At the same time, however, I remember being intrigued and wanting more. It begged for multiple viewings to decipher what I had just witnessed. My quest to find out what Kubrick was trying to convey occupied me for a number of days. I found myself knee-deep in blogs and YouTube videos hoping to find even a shred of an explanation.

Upon finishing the novel, I was baffled at just how easy it reads. I assumed Kubrick told the story the way he did because the source material was just as vague in its storytelling. This could not be further from the truth. Clarke explains the last 20 minutes of the film, along with many components of 2001, in a way that a 12-year old could understand. This experience begged the question: when is exposition necessary? After all, film is a visual medium. A novel has the job of explaining the world in which we are immersing ourselves in through words. People get different things from a film-going experience. Less exposition allows for a much broader interpretation of the subject matter instead of being told what we are supposed to be watching and the message we are supposed to walk away with. My respect for Kubrick and his decision to shoot 2001 the way he did has only grown over the years. I appreciate Kubrick’s effort to give us a completely different experience watching the story unravel visually, rather than having it explained to us like the novel does.

Christopher Nolan is known for his use of practical effects on his large-scale productions and bringing (mostly) original stories to the big screen. Nolan’s recent sci-fi epic, Interstellar, is a prime example of how a story can suffer with too much exposition. Imagine the directors swapping places when considering these two sci-fi epics. I think we would’ve seen a much more novelized version of 2001, and a deep think piece about love transcending time in Interstellar. I am a big fan of Interstellar. In some ways, it is on the same level as 2001, especially the decision to use practical effects on a large-scale voyage. But when you analyze the storytelling aspect, I think Interstellar suffers due to blatant exposition. Anne Hathaway’s character is essentially there to explain the entire message of the film. When a director needs a character to explain exactly what they are trying to convey, something has gone wrong behind the camera. Nolan floods this visually stunning epic with speeches and exposition, most of which is unnecessary. Imagine the entire scene of the Tesseract without Cooper and T.A.R.S. explaining everything they need to do. I felt insulted with how much exposition was going on. I could watch that scene on mute and would be able to understand and piece together on my own what was happening. So why the exposition? Nolan’s biggest weakness in his storytelling is the fear of leaving the audience without answers or without a stable interpretation of his film. He must have a resolution with a complete understanding of the message and facts laid out for the audience instead of encouraging us to figure it out on our own. (I will say that Memento is an exception). We would experience a much more interesting and thought-provoking film if Nolan had chosen to take the “less is more” route in Interstellar.

This article is not meant as a knock on Nolan. Interstellar is just a prime example of how exposition can hurt a great film. I am also not suggesting that every film needs to be as abstract as Kubrick’s 2001. Exposition is of course a necessary tool to help propel a film’s story and characters. But too much or too little is what can prevent a great film from becoming a masterpiece. Directors will always be faced with the battle to balance their trust in the audience with the fear that their message will get lost in the end. The use of exposition is truly an art that differentiates the great storytellers from the best in the business.

Time Travel Done Right

Published on July 8, 2017 in Reviews by William Morris

If time travel ever came to be, in what form would it exist? Would it be in the form of a car? A plane? Or maybe even a violin case? (To understand these references, see Back to the Future, Time Chasers, and Predestination). Ideas of time travel and how it works are embedded in our brains from popular culture. Each time travel film comes with its own unique way of explaining and dealing with its logic, coupled with how the characters do the time traveling. Alternatively, some make it a point to steer the audience away from the logic to focus more on the story, as shown in this scene from Looper (2011).

In 2004, Shane Carruth wrote, directed and starred in what I believe to be the smartest time travel film to date: Primer. It’s the story about two friends who are working out of their garage to come up with the next big invention. They accidentally create a means for them to travel back in time, causing problems between the two and those around them. That is as simple as I can put it. He made the movie with an estimated budget of a mere $7,000. It gained some traction at the Sundance Film Festival and is currently on Netflix. This stands up there with some of the greatest time travel movies of all time. For so many reasons this movie continues to blow me away every time I watch it.

Primer did with time travel what other big blockbusters have successfully achieved. Batman Begins (2005) took a comic book character that had previously existed in a world far removed from our reality and put him in our world. Those films helped us picture what it might be like if Batman existed. From his suit to his car, it felt like that film could take place in our world. Casino Royale (2006) did the same thing with James Bond. Removing the outrageous gadgets and one liners in silly situations, it successfully grounded the character in our reality. These attempts were refreshing and successfully captured the audience in new ways. Primer removes the flashy aspect of time travel. There is no flying Delorean. Carruth uses this large “science box” for lack of a better word. The minuscule budget played a part in the way this device looks; it’s nothing pretty to look at. It looks like it was made from materials you buy at a hardware store. What really blew me away is how the time traveling works in this world. After watching this film a few times, and watching some YouTube videos to help explain it, allow me to try and explain it to you.

Essentially, you can’t just go back in time to whatever day you want in history. This is the aspect that initially captured my attention. You are only allowed to travel as far back as from the moment you turn the machine on. For example, if I woke up this morning and turned the machine on at 8:00 A.M., then the earliest I’ll be able to go back in time is 8:00 A.M. of that day. The catch is you have to stay in the box for the same amount of time that you waited to get back in it. So if I got in the box at 12:00 P.M. after turning it on at 8:00 A.M. that morning, I would have to stay in the box for 4 hours, only to get out of the box and see that it’s 8:00 A.M. again. Still with me? I hope so. It becomes increasingly difficult to travel back further and further in time. Try laying down in a small box for more than 24 hours. It wouldn’t be easy. The engineers create this machine around the time of March Madness, enabling them to see how the games play out that day so they can go back in the morning and place their bets. They also check the stock market and play that as well. Logically, it makes sense that the first thing many of us would do is play the market or make bets to get some quick cash.

This method of time travel rings more true to me than any other film I have seen. If someone were to invent time travel today, this is how I would picture it. Carruth, with a budget he could put on is credit card, successfully captured and grounded time travel in our reality. With a 77 minute runtime, you can make time to watch this movie. The way Carruth tells the story makes sense, but it is very difficult to put together in your head on first viewing. It may feel convoluted and messy until you watch it and make the effort afterwards to figure out its logic. For a first-time filmmaker, Carruth deserves high praise for what he accomplishes with this film.

The Argument for Affleck

Published on June 21, 2017 in Essays by William Morris

Adam West. Michael Keaton. Val Kilmer. George Clooney. Christian Bale. Ben Affleck. These names have become immortalized because they have donned the much-coveted cowl of The Batman. No matter what their future brings, their turn as The Bat will always be remembered. The question is, who will be remembered for what? The best? The worst? I think it is necesary to exclude Adam West from this argument. While he is recognized as a member of this exclusive club, he belongs to a different era, separated by 23 years from Keaton. I will also exclude any voice actors who have worked on the animated films and series. There is no comparison to what Kevin Conroy has done for Batman fans around the world for so many years and continues to do so. Kevin Conroy and Adam West, we salute you.

As I was gathering my thoughts for this piece, it dawned on me: more people have worn the cowl than have held the title of 007. That’s right. Only 6 actors have played James Bond in 24 movies in the span of 54 years (yes, I am excluding the 1967 Casino Royale). This fact surprised me, considering that we only have 7 stand-alone Batman films. With so many Bond films, all with different actors who bring their own style to the character, each fan has come to their own conclusion as to what they want to see out of a Bond Character. Some are die hard classic Connery fans, while some are more into the gritty take of Daniel Craig (at the time of this writing, we have not heard from any Roger Moore die-hards). Batman is similar to Bond in the sense that the character of Batman has been envisioned in many different ways. From the films, to the animated series, and more particularly, the comic books, The Batman has evolved, evolved, and evolved again. There is a plethora of different styles of Batman that fans cling to. The direction the film and actor choose to take the character automatically causes a divide in the fans. Will it be just like the Batman in the animated series they grew up with watching? Will it be just like Frank Miller’s genius take in The Dark Knight Returns? Every fan has in their appetite what they want to see on the big screen. For this reason, every actor who took this role was bound to disappoint some portion of the fans. So, without further ado, allow me to explain to you why Ben Affleck is the best on-screen portrayal of The Bat.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. Affleck is yet to have his own stand-alone film. He has not had a chance to really sink his teeth into it. But Batman v Superman was enough to convince me that out of all the actors to put on the mask, Affleck is the one I am most excited about. There is so much about his take on the character that resonates with the Batman that I want to see more of. Allow me to explain.

1. He Looks The Part.

It’s about time that we get the grey suit! His size and mass in the suit really bring a sense of brutality to the character. I feel like Bale’s suit was very militarized. While it looks cool, and seems like more of a real-world take, it just doesn’t feel like it is true to the suit that I grew up watching and reading about. Keaton is the next best suit with the black on yellow symbol that makes more of an effort to stay close to the comics. I will avoid talking about the infamous bat nipples from the Schumacher films. While enemies are supposed to fear Batman from the shadows, Affleck in broad daylight is just as threatening. I’m also a fan of the voice changer in the suit. Bale spawned a multitude of bad Batman impersonators, but ultimately I thought it worked in the films. Affleck’s voice changer just sounds so cool.

2. The Fighting.

There is no comparison when it comes to his fighting style. It only took one scene from BvS to really convince me that this Batman knows how to take on his foes. The only real way to explain it is to show you this clip. You cannot tell me that we’ve seen Batman kick that much tail in such a cool fashion in any of the previous films. You feel every punch in this scene and you buy that Affleck could really pull all of this off. It feels like a perfect blend of tact with a sense of pure brutality. It’s the kind of scene that leaves me pumping my fist and makes me excited to see more of that in his stand-alone film. For comparison, here is a clip from the supposedly epic final battle between Batman and Bane from Dark Knight Rises. For an end fight scene to a fantastic trilogy, it feels so stale and feels like the same fight we see earlier in the film. Very disappointing and nothing to pump my fist over. Keaton’s fight scenes aren’t much different in the sense that it looks like he can barely move in his suit half the time. We can blame that on the full rubber suit. Although he is a contender for having the best looking suit, I think it ultimately worked towards his detriment when it comes to his mobility.

3. Loyalty To The Cowl.

This might be more of a nitpick. But the fact that Christian Bale’s Batman only fights 3 villains before he throws in the towel really bothers me. I like having the trilogy and being able to see Bale flesh out that character from beginning to end. But when all is said and done, he gives up after going up against a few baddies. Affleck’s Batman, however, has been in the business for 20+ years and counting, which is part of what makes him more interesting. We don’t get his origin, but we assume he has been to hell and back with how many villains he would’ve come across in all that time, as well as the death of Robin. This helps justify why he seems to have drifted off course a little from his hard code of no killing. A lot of fans were upset about this fact, but honestly, it didn’t bother me at all. I like seeing a more seasoned Batman that has been in the business long enough to be willing to break a few rules. Keaton is similar to Affleck in the sense that we don’t get his origin story and we assume that he has been in the business for a while and is more committed to his role as The Bat than Bale’s version is.

I must let it be known that I do have a deep appreciation for the Keaton/Burton and Bale/Nolan collaborations and the precedents they have set for the superhero genre (I have nothing but good things to say about Batman and The Dark Knight). They have made great films that will last a lifetime and have successfully encapsulated the Caped Crusader in their own unique ways. Val Kilmer just happened to be Batman with the wrong director and story, and I don’t think Clooney ever had a chance no matter his situation. But Ben Affleck didn’t even need a stand-alone movie to blow me away. He captured the Batman that I have had in my mind and I cannot wait to see what he does with it. I do appreciate Zack Snyder for being willing to take Batman to the place where we have him now. But if Snyder can get as far away as possible from writing/directing the stand-alone film, it would be much appreciated.

Talk Movies To Me

William Morris - page 5

William Morris has 30 articles published.