By Mike Maleson
Contributing Writer

Roy Hargrove at Jazz Alley Photo by Claire Scarbeary.

On Thursday, April 1, Icons Among Us: Jazz in the Present Tense had two screenings at Berklee, sponsored by the Office of Cultural Diversity.  Afterwards there was a panel discussion with producer B. Dahlia, Cinematographer/Co-Director Lars Larson and musicians Anat Cohen. (Berklee alumnus ’98) and Greg Osby (Berklee Professor).

The movie is visually beautiful, mixing the media of super 16 film as well as digital formats.  The music is also abundant and well presented.  Much of the live concert content comes from footage of concerts in Seattle, and there is also film from the Newport Jazz Festival (featuring Esperanza Spalding), a studio session of Ravi Coltrane, as well as a lovely scene of Donald Harrison fixing his house, teaching kids and making music in New Orleans.

Icons Among Us serves as a reaction to the box into which Ken Burns places jazz in his documentary series.  To that end, it begins with questioning the word “jazz” itself.  There are many notable artists who make claims as to what jazz is and is not.  The variety of musicians interviewed in the film all add to the discussion, proving that jazz is, above all else, an art form that inspires ideas. The 93 minute film was originally presented as a four part (4 hour) series on the Documentary Channel.

Icons Among Us is not for everybody, but those who love jazz, study music and have experience with music documentaries will love the film.  It’s a must-have for very library and music school.

By Zac Taylor
Managing Editor

Scorcese and Leo are back together in the uber creepy genre film Shutter Island. Based on the novel by Dennis Lehane (author of Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone), rest assured that there will be no rest in the dire and tragic nature of this compelling mystery. Set on an island on the Massachusetts’ coast, the film welcomes you with Federal Marshall Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) vomiting in a closet-sized washroom on a boat en route to Shutter Island, accompanied by new partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo), to investigate the mysterious disappearance of a very dangerous patient. After finding out that the premises is nothing more than an asylum for the criminally insane consisting of three buildings: one for men, one for women, and one extra scary one for the most vicious of inmates…er…patients, an aggressive storm overtakes the island, and a Jurassic Park-like scenario breaks out; the power lines go down, insane criminals run amok, and it rains like hell.

 Throughout the film, Teddy is not well. He suffers from migraines, has dreams about his deceased wife, and is often overwhelmed by his hunch that he is being lied to by the entire staff of the asylum, especially head physician Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley). With all of these factors weighing on his brain, he begins to wonder who he can trust: his partner, the patients who know about his past, or even himself.

Why did he have to surrender his gun when we got to the island? How did the serial killer patient disappear through the steel door? Why is everyone so uneasy around him? What goes on inside of the guarded lighthouse? Prepare yourself for some sharp left turns.

The film is not so much scary as it is creepy. Scorcese’s masterful direction and Laeta Kalogridis’ screenplay adaptation of the novel have a merciless grab on the hollow in your chest. While some creative liberties were taken, and some of the action became droning, rainstorm after rainstorm, the film is nonetheless consistently compelling. Excellent performances by DeCaprio, Ruffalo, and Kingsley will make you glad it’s over when it is, but also want to see it again after the many sleight-of-hands.

By Ann Driscoll
Associate Editor

Light on scares, heavy on monotony, Paranormal Activity is a weak entry into the “recovered footage” genre of horror movies that has existed since Cannibal Holocaust in 1980 and found a popular resurgence in 1999’s The Blair Witch Project. Cloverfield, Quarantine, and other recent horror movies that use this style have been adept at delivering scares but not so good at convincing us that what we’re watching is a successful recreation of camcorder footage. The problem these films have is surmounting the overarching implausibility that the characters would still be filming after a certain amount of carnage, bloodshed, what-have-you, has ensued. Paranormal Activity has the converse problem; it’s believable as recovered camcorder footage, but largely because it’s so boring and devoid of scares.

The film is about young couple, Micah (Micah Sloat) and Katie (Katie Featherstone) who live in a curiously large, decidedly un-charming San Diego house. Katie is being haunted by a demon that has targeted her since youth, and Micah documents the haunting with a new camcorder.

The majority of the scary stuff happens at night in the bedroom, with the camcorder situated in front of the bed, capturing such terrifying occurrences as a door opening and closing while the two are sleeping. Maybe I just have a high tolerance for scares, but a ghost’s footprints in talcum powder don’t exactly hit me where it hurts. There are creative ways of suggesting menace through subtle gags, through the interplay of light and shadow (think the first half of caving horror masterpiece The Descent). But first-time director Oren Peli has no clue how to build suspense and execute scares. A prime squandered opportunity for terror occurs when Micah has to peek into the attic. I won’t reveal what happens, but it’s a big letdown.

A major hindrance to the film is the fact that so many scenes transpire where literally nothing happens. The timer on the camcorder moves forward, showing us, with interminable thoroughness, the night wherein Micah and Katie (hold your breath)…slept…and (cover your eyes) changed positions a few times. After months go by of these uneventful nights, you lose faith that the director actually has anything at all up his sleeve. The payoff is indeed creepy, albeit a tad hokey, but had the film sustained even a modicum of that level of terror throughout, it certainly would have been more successful.

If the object was psychological terror, the film needed more compelling characters and more dynamic actors to play them. Micah is a stereotypical bro-ish dickhead, haranguing his girlfriend into having sex on camera to the point of uncomfortable harassment. Defying his girlfriend’s wishes, and in general, acting obnoxious and callous, Micah is a most insufferable protagonist. Likewise, Katie is a stereotypical passive girlfriend who stomachs Micah’s indignities by giggling at his “boys-will-be-boys” indecency. It would all be fine if the film presented this dysfunctional relationship, seemingly styled after 1950s couples as what it is: dysfunctional. Instead, their relationship is supposed to be, at least initially, a blissful pairing between two successful, appealing young adults. Barf.

Paranormal Activity is not an atrocious film, but compared to recent movies that use similar techniques, it’s sub-par. Critics and audiences alike have heralded the fact that it only cost $15 grand to make: dirt-cheap, especially considering it’s already grossed over 80 million. But to quote Chris Rock’s joke about Blair Witch Project at the 99 VMA’s, “Where did all the money go?!”

Michael Stuhlbarg as Larry Gopnik.

By Ann Driscoll
Associate Editor 

Torture porn director Eli Roth has nothing on the Coen Brothers. Their latest film systematically victimizes its likeable protagonist with such determined, misanthropic glee, that it’ll leave your emotions in a vice. For a movie with no violence, there are moments so painful that you almost want to peek through the cracks in your hands rather than endure the cruelty.

A Serious Man is certainly an improvement over the Coens’ last film, Burn After Reading, whose uniformly hideous characters are cruel without reason. By contrast, the Coens are on the side of their beleaguered protagonist the entire time. Larry Gopnik, (Michael Stuhlbarg) a college professor and family man in 1967 Minneapolis, is smart, kindly, and morally upright, though pathologically incapable of standing up for himself.

Read the full story

By Zac Taylor
Editor-in-Chief

Mickey Rourke is a smash hit, and administers a few of his own, in director Darren Aronofsky’s The Wrestler. Randy “The Ram” Robinson (Rourke) is a washed up WWE Professional Wrestler that has trouble paying rent. Having to work at a grocery store in suburban New Jersey to make ends meet, Randy still hits the mat at low budget venues, high schools, and promo events for under the table cash. The younger, up-and-coming wrestlers admire the Ram, as he was king of the ring in 1980s, and even starred in a Pro Wrestling Nintendo video game. A fake tan, bleached blond hair, and a lifetime of staged “Ram Jams” (his signature move) highlight an aging brawny stature that is on the verge of losing the only thing he knows how to do.

His estranged daughter (Rachel Evan Wood) resents him, and a stripper named Cassidy (Marisa Tomei) has to remind him that he’s “just a customer.” Meanwhile, a handful of fans are the only light that give his dreary life a shred of relevance. The broken down fighter ingests all kinds of pharmaceuticals, which wreak havoc on his crumbling frame. After a sadomasochistic match with real life hardcore brawler the Necro Butcher (Dylan Summers), in which the two blast one another with a staple gun, glass, and barb wire, the Ram suffers a heart attack backstage, and wakes up in the hospital after undergoing bypass surgery. Realizing he needs a change in his life, he tries to reconnect with his daughter, and kindle a romance with his favorite stripper Cassidy. All the while, he tries desperately to cope with the loss of his only accolade of being the Ram, and tempts himself to return to the ring, even though it may cost him his life.

The tone of this tale of an All-American punching bag is somewhere between the later Rocky films and Million Dollar Baby in both its barbaric self-destruction, stubborn pursuit of glory, and brazen heroism. “It’s about a guy who wants to be loved,” Director Darren Aronofsky said. “And he’s loved by his audience and then when he can’t be loved by them anymore, he looks for love from these two different women. And when he can’t make that work, he goes back to the only place where he knows it works.” Rourke and Tomei have such an engaging chemistry together, as both of their characters use their bodies as their careers, and cope with aging, and loneliness. The film hits theatres December 21st.

By Ann Driscoll
Associate Editor

Defiance is exactly the kind of movie that Tropic Thunder skewers: a big-budget Hollywood effort that converts a tragic historical event into action-packed bombast (in Tropic Thunder, it’s Vietnam; in this, it’s the Holocaust). The heroes are brawny and butt-kicking, the chicks are gorgeous, the one-liners are catchy, and the guns are super-cool, but is this the kind of film that does justice, in any way, to the horrors of the Holocaust? The Holocaust certainly had its heroes, but applying the Rambo or even the Braveheart template (which this film frequently resembles) to mass suffering and genocide seems inappropriate at the least. Director Ed Zwick, who helmed The Last Samurai and Glory, clearly has his heart in the right place and is a skilled craftsman at big-budget blockbusters, which mitigates some of the problems. Indeed, Defiance clips along at two hours with nary a lull, and will likely please the masses, even if it bypasses raw pathos for melodramatic characterizations and is generally too rooted in the conventions of action films.

The film centers on the true story of two Russian-Jewish brothers, played by Daniel Craig and Liev Schreiber who establish a secret camp of Jewish refugees in the wilderness during the Nazi occupation of Belarus. Tuvia (Craig) anoints himself leader of the camp, which grows to over a thousand. Zus (Schreiber) the tougher and more cutthroat of the two, eventually joins the Russian partisans fighting the Nazis despite their complicity in anti-Semitic raids. The film depicts life at the camp while interposing action sequences of Zus at combat alongside the Russians.

By far, the film’s most serious and admirable aspect is the dynamic between Zus’s imperative to fight against the Nazis in combat versus Tuvia’s imperative to offer a stable society to as many Jews as possible. A scene that juxtaposes the marriage of younger brother Asael (Jamie Bell) in Tuvia’s village with Zus engaged in combat elegantly articulates the role animalistic violence takes in saving the persecuted Jews, as well as the preservation of civilized society. One is a fight for their lives. One is a fight for their souls.

Defiance aims to uplift, not to depress, but there is a way to honor heroism without reducing the suffering inherent in any story set among persecuted Jews during the Holocaust. Zwick does not emotionally invest us in a single character that perishes. The violence depicted is brutal, but lacks consequences. All of the main characters are seemingly invincible, dodging bullets with Neo-like maneuverability. A climactic scene involving a Nazi ambush is particularly offensive in how divorced from reality (and historical accuracy) it is. Characters get punched and beaten with little wounds. And the hygiene of all of the main characters, except the lone “bad guy” in the camp, is impeccable.

Attempts at tragedy fail due to histrionic execution. One scene clumsily that aspires to poignancy involves Zus finding out about the death of his wife and children. In quick succession, he hunkers down, vomits, and smashes his head against a tree. The camera then zooms onto his face, a steady stream of fake blood spurting down Liev Schreiber’s head. Over-the-top acting and an inappropriate makeup cue, which attempt to make the moment bigger instead distract us from the gravity and devastating simplicity of the content.

By Zac Taylor
Editor-in-Chief

One of the best films of the year is, without a doubt, Slumdog Millionaire. Director Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, 28 Days Layer, Millions) paired with screenwriter Simon Beaufoy (The Full Monty) adapted the novel Q&A by Vikas Swarup to bring this harrowing tale of love, tragedy, and triumph to the big screen. Set in modern day Mumbai (Bombay), the action begins with Jamal Malik (Dev Patel) one question away from winning 20 million rupees on the Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? The excitement and glamour of the moment is short lived, as Jamal is suspected of cheating, considering he has been a slum dweller his entire life. Upon brutal interrogation, the police discover that Jamal was not cheating; the young man explains how he knew the answer to each question through tales of strife throughout his life.

Jamal and his brother Salim are played by 3 different actors each for different periods of their lives. They start out as seven year olds, conning tourists at the Taj Mahal by taking them on fake tours and stealing their shoes to make a few bucks. Their childhood friend Latika tags along, who came from the same overpopulated neighborhood, also an orphan. The threesome are recruited by a crime boss, who exploits them to beg for change. The brothers escape, but Latika is detained. Fast forward to age thirteen, where the boys have evolved to robbing train cars. They manage to locate Latika, but Jamal is abandoned in the midst of running from gangs and police. Just before the present day Jamal, now 18 years old,  gets a slot on the hit television show, he slugs Salim upon reuniting. Latika (Freida Pinto), now a gorgeous young woman, has essentially become an indentured servant to Salim’s mob boss. She tries to abscond with Jamal, but is detained by Salim and his thugs. The chaos of Bombay and the riveting suspense of whether or not Jamal will win the game, get the girl, and become a rags-to-riches hero is wholly captivating.

“The book reveals Mumbai (aka Bombay) as a city in fast-forward,” Screenwriter Simon Beaufoy said.  “It’s like a Dickensian London brought into the 21st century.  It’s rapidly developing.  The poor are poorer than ever before.  The rich are richer than ever before.  And there’s this mass of people in the middle, trying to force their way up.  It’s a fantastic setting for a fairy tale.” Popular Bollywood star Anil Kapoor plays the role of Prem, the bawdy host of Who Wants To Be a Millionaire? Stay after the ending to see some of Bollywood’s finest in a magestic, if slightly out of place, dance sequence featuring the entire cast.

By Dan Htoo-Levine
Staff Writer

Since the days of Mel Brooks and Woody Allen, the comedy genre has lost integrity and originality. Its rebirth has been a long time coming. Like predecessors Anchorman, The 40 Year Old Virgin, and Superbad, Paul Rudd’s latest film Role Models is sure to restore any audience’s faith in funny movies.

Drawing elements from the cult sensation Clerks, Rudd plays a self-loathing pessimist named Danny, and Sean William-Scott portrays Wheeler, his party-loving, carefree counterpart. The two work together selling Minotaur, an energy drink, and giving anti-drug lectures to students. When Danny’s girlfriend, played by Elizabeth Banks, dumps him, he snaps on a tow-truck driver trying to impound his car, getting himself and his co-worker arrested.

Instead of going to prison, Danny and Wheeler are sentenced to 150 hours of community service at a big brother program, where they are paired up with Augie, a social outcast, and Ronnie, a wisecracking potty mouth. Though reluctant to work with Augie, Danny eventually warms up to him, while Wheeler and Ronnie quickly find a common interest in sexuality and the female anatomy. When the big brothers botch up their relationships with their “littles,” they have to choose between appearing in court, or repairing their friendships with the kids.

Although the plot line is cheesy and predictable in places, it is saturated with laughs. True to both Rudd and Scott’s brand of comedy, the film is wildly offensive and inappropriate. Although Bobb’e Thompson, the twelve-year-old actor who plays Ronnie, says some of the most outrageous lines in the movie, there is more to Role Models than shock-value comedy. Augie, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse of Superbad fame, interjects an element of social comedy by making fun of the Dungeons and Dragons Tolkien-esque counterculture, while his parents are a caricature of a typical middle class-American family.

Heartwarming and offensive, predictable and in certain spots unexpected, Role Models hardly breaks new ground, but comes at a new golden age of cinematic comedy. Although it won’t be remembered as a classic, it is an energetic hour and a half of laughs that keeps audiences enthralled.