If you’re familiar at all with the Coen brothers and haven’t seen Fargo, it falls, in tone and style, almost squarely between O Brother Where Art Thou and No Country for Old Men. That is to say, it’s unbelievably hilarious, but unnervingly dark. A dark comedy. A dark comedy of errors.

At its core, Fargo is a movie about very simple people making very simple choices and ending up in ever-more-incredible situations. It’s a comedy of crime and begins when one very poor choice, and spirals out of control from there.

Like No Country for Old Men, Fargo is set against a bleak and enormous landscape. The cold and snow of Minneapolis and North Dakota pervade the entire movie. I love this about the Coen brothers. They work well to turn these huge, wide open spaces, into menacing, lonely places. As the viewer, they give you a sense of how isolated and alone a particular character is just by setting them against a huge white field of snow. It’s brilliant and works well as the different characters’ increasingly poor choices marginalize them both physically and psychologically from the rest of the world.

Fargo is brilliantly acted. Frances McDormand, who captured an Oscar for her role, plays a pregnant police officer tracking her hapless suspects across statelines. We’re first introduced to her character, brilliantly, as she’s awakened in the middle of the night by a phone call. She has to rush to the scene of a triple-homicide, but not before her husband cooks her a meal of eggs, and then jump starts her police cruiser. William H. Macy plays an automobile salesmen who loses complete control of his life about five minutes into the film when his flawed plan to kidnap, and then ransom back his wife in order to cheat money out of his tight-fisted father-in-law goes decidedly wrong. And then there’s Steve Buscemi who pretty much, I think, plays himself (which is awesome).

Really, these characters are incredible. When I say simple people, I mean it. McDormand’s character is alarmingly down-to-earth and without any effort at all, puts each piece of the puzzle together throughout the film. In what seems entirely effortless—second-nature—she pieces clue after clue together to track her suspects. Likewise, Macy plays a character who’s ridiculous choices land him in deeper and deeper trouble. And unlike a standard-fair comedy, where otherwise normal people make seemingly idiotic choices (often times unbelievably so), Macy’s character in and of himself is ridiculous: the choices he makes, then, are perfectly natural. It works so well.

As a disclaimer, the Coen brothers are known for their language and this movie has its fair share of f-bombs, especially once one of the main characters is shot in the face, but if you can appreciate context I wouldn’t worry about it.

I could go on, at even greater length, about this film because it’s one of my favourites. The characters are brilliant (Oscar-winning), the writing is brilliant (Oscar-winning) and the cinematography, the landscapes, the atmosphere—brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. The Coen brothers do very good work and, in my opinion, this is one of their best.

Update: Just proof-read this post and corrected the egregious spelling errors. I apologize for the previously poor quality.

Film

Upcoming in film is Martin Scorsese’s new film, a thriller, called Shutter Island. It looks utterly terrifying and a thriller like this, in the hands of a capable director like Scorsese, it’s bound to be incredible. It comes out in Canada on February 19 and we’re just waiting. With Maria and I both not feeling great over the weekend, we also spent a lot of time laying around and watching movies. Look for a bunch of reviews over the next few days; I won’t give anything away just yet.

Music

On the encouragement of someone who’s musical tastes I sufficiently trust, I dug out The Decemberist’s most recent album The Hazards of Love to give it another go. When I originally heard it—and reviewed it—I wasn’t a fan. It felt disconnected and obnoxious. It’s a rock opera, after all. Giving it another shot though and it’s growing on me, a little bit. I think, perhaps, I was originally too quick to judge but we’ll see. One thing I can say for sure, is that The Talking Heads greatest hits record has been on rotation on my iTunes since Christmas, when I got it, and it ain’t go anywhere.

Television

On the television side of things, there isn’t really anything else to discuss, it’s LOST. So many questions to consider after last week’s episode, and you can believe I’ll have a huge review up here after this week’s installment. I guess the one real question is: what the heck is going on?! But I’m also wondering about Richard, last we saw he was being dragged into the jungle by Fake Locke. And where’s Ilana? What was her job exactly, because it certainly wasn’t to save Jacob, she didn’t even enter into the room under the statue with the rest of her group—where did she go? And, what’s going on?!

Last week I twittered through the episode, it was fun, and I’ll be there again this week if you care to follow.

OK, I think that’s all for this week’s round-up. I’m off to do some dishes and bake some brownies for a Superbowl party; now if I can only remember which teams are playing…

Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes was an incredible ride, the whole way through.

As a die hard Sherlock Holmes fan, and not a fan of Diehard, I approached this movie with trepidation. Guy Ritchie is a skillful director, a master, in my opinion, but can be tasteless, violent and crude at times, too. I worried, as did the rest of Holmes’ devoted fans, what he might do once he got his hands on the franchise of the world’s greatest sleuth. In the end, I needn’t have worried, for Holmes was in very good hands.

It needs to be said, first of all, that this isn’t your grandmother’s Sherlock Holmes. In a way it isn’t, but in another way, it is. Despite being the world’s greatest detective, a master problem-solver, Holmes, as a figure in literature, is a drug-addict, a recluse, a boxer, and an anti-social kind of psychopath driven by an insatiable curiosity. In Doyle’s writings this is evident: if Holmes isn’t on a case, he’s a mess—he needs the cases to stave off insanity. In most, nearly all, adaptations of Holmes for the big- and small-screen this part of his character, the most unseemly aspect, is downplayed if at all present.

Ritchie, the master of the seedy British underworld, makes this aspect of Holmes’ character nearly central to who he is. Not a perfect adaptation, but not unlike all the previous ones we’ve seen, Ritchie just chooses (as we knew he would) to swing the other way. That’s his thing. That said, it’s not an unfaithful representation and in the plot that Ritchie has written (his own original Holmes adventure) this version of Sherlock fits well.

But it is, after all, a Guy Ritchie take on Holmes and, no, your grandmother won’t enjoy it. It’s action-based and exciting and chalk-full of Ritchie’s brilliantly-crafted plot twists, irony, and humour. I’ll say it again: Ritchie is a brilliant director. With Holmes, he doesn’t disappoint, and his take on the franchise is, to put it best, fun. He hasn’t done for Holmes what Christopher Nolan has done for Batman, but it is nice to see another take on the detective, and it’s a franchise that I’m excited to see more of.

The Gathering Storm (2002) and Into the Storm (2009) are the first and second parts of an HBO-produced made-for-television movie series on the life of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. While they’re two very separate movies, with entirely different casts, produced seven years apart I think a review of them, in contrast and comparison, is the best approach to take.

The first movie, The Gathering Storm, is set in the years leading up to the Second World War. Churchill is an embattled MP fighting to keep India as a British colony, immediately recognizable as an outsider, a political outcast and an isolated man. He seems slow, very, very old and stubborn. When he begins to recognize a threat in Nazi Germany he acts, like a bulldog (it is said), to gather as much intelligence as he can on the Germans. Realizing that the threat is a real one, we see Churchill muster up all of his strength to throw behind his public debates, radio addresses, and lobbying, working tirelessly to elicit a government response to the German question.

In this first film, Churchill is played brilliantly by Albert Finney; his wife, portrayed by Vanessa Redgrave.

The second movie, Into the Storm, takes place during the war years. Churchill is now an embattled Prime Minister, fighting what seems like a very difficult, nearly impossible battle against the German war machine. Still, he “buggers on” and with help from the Americans and later the Russians, manages to pull Britain through the war.

In this film, the cast is entirely different with Brendan Gleeson as Churchill and Janet McTeer as Clementine Churchill.

Both of these films are incredibly strong. Both received a number of awards and honours and, for me, rank up there as far as bio-pics go. The difference in casting and direction though makes for two very different films, despite being sequels.

The first film is a straight narrative. The attention paid to Churchill acquiring enemy intelligence and fighting against public opinion to endorse a war against Germany was interesting, but I found it to be a bit boring, too. It seemed to me, disjointed at times. It’s clear that the director wanted to focus on Winston and Winston alone but even for a larger-than-life figure, the lens, to me, was a bit too narrow. During the lead up to the war there were lots of interesting things happening and focusing on only a very narrow range of those things, things immediately pertinent to Churchill’s life makes it difficult to really understand and appreciate their impact. At times, going from speech, to bathtub, to speech, without being given a glimpse of what’s happened in the interim is difficult. Maybe, as a History Major, I wanted more context than we were given but maybe that’s just me.

The second film, in contrast, was set as a series of flashbacks. In the present-day timeline, Churchill is, as always, a beleagured Prime Minister. Having just one the war, he’s faced with an election which threatens to unseat him. Through the flashbacks, we learn about some of his prouder moments as a war-time Prime Minister. To me, Into the Storm seems like the more well-rounded and well-produced film. But, then again, there is much more context. There’s still a clear directoral decision to focus very tightly on Churchill and not make it into a war film but there’s a little more explaining, a little more context to be got from this second installment.

But, it’s not exactly a tit for tat situation.

A large part of both of these films is intended to be the interaction between Churchill and his Mrs. As much as these films focus on the war, they focus on the deterioration, and survival, of their marriage. In the first film, this chemistry is incredible. Winston is portrayed as a very old man, almost feeble at times, who is at the same time bitter, chastened and stubborn, but very much in love with “his” Clementine. In the second film, despite playing an older Churchill, Gleeson plays him as a much more able-bodied, much younger, and yet more estranged from his wife. The chemistry of the first film, in my opinion, is much more developed and interesting to watch.

A lot can be said, lastly, about the portrayal of Churchill himself and I’m still on the fence, even now, as to which portrayal I prefer. Finney’s Churchill is much older, much more feeble, and nearly impossible to understand at times. That said, he’s got Churchill’s infamous bulldog growl down to a tee. It’s brilliant. On the other hand, the long side-shot of Gleeson, as Churchill, standing at a window, or waiting for a meeting with the King, is utterly epic.

If I had to choose a movie I prefered, I probably couldn’t. No, I can’t. There are merits, and drawbacks, for both films. Instead, I suggest that you see them both but if you want an even better HBO-produced bio-pic watch John Adams, my personal favourite.

An incredible clip from the CBC archives featuring a young Lloyd Robertson interviewing a “street surfer” or “skurfer” in 1965.

If you’re a Lostie at all then you’ve been waiting for this event with unbridled anticipation: the 2-hour premiere of the final season of ABC’s LOST. In our own anticipation, Maria and I rewatched both Season 4 and 5 and mentally prepared ourselves for the journey that was to take place last night at 9.

We both knew that the biggest reveal was going to come in the very first seconds of the episode. That last season had ended with the explosion of a hydrogen bomb in an attempt to reset the events of the entire series thus far. We knew that if all went well at the end of Season 5, if the bomb went off (and it looked like it did), then all of the survivors would be back in the air, on their flight bound for Los Angeles Airport (LAX). Even those that died.

The fade in from white, after the obligatory recap, was painfully long, and intentionally so, the producers knew that had us in the palm of their hands, so to speak.

Alternative Timeline

The show does begin on the airplane, and the opening scene with Jack plays out almost exactly as it did in the season premiere. We think, and freak out, and wonder if everything really did get reset—if the last five seasons have been erased and what will that mean and what will happen for the rest of Season 6 and on and on. But things begin to unfold differently.

As we soon realize, when we’re snapped back to the island, our beloved survivors have not escaped the Others and the island but have jumped forward in time to meet up with Fake Locke, Sun, and the other survivors of the second plane crash. Instead of resetting the whole thing, the explosion of the bomb seems to have created alternative, disjointed timelines. The survivors exist, seemingly at the same time, on both the plane, and later in Los Angeles, but also on the island.

As the alternative, what-if-we-didn’t-crash timeline begins to unfold there are noticeable differences in the characters. Locke seems happy, instead of miserable (did he get to go on his walkabout after all?). Jin and Sun seem to be happily in love (but Jin is obviously keeping something from her?). Hurley, probably the most pronounced difference of all, seems to regard his lottery winning and fortune as good luck instead of a curse. I’m probably missing more, but the point is that this alternative timeline isn’t just “what would’ve happened,” but these characters are, somehow, different.

Worth mentioning is that Jack seems to know that something is up: he recognizes Desmond and, besides, what is Desmond doing on the flight to begin with? Could this be a flash-forward to the end of Season 6?

Jacob’s Nemesis

Rewatching Seasons 4 and 5 with the knowledge that Jacob’s nemesis can seemingly inhabit dead bodies is a crazy experience. Maria and I forgot how often characters like John’s dad appear and the implications of the things those characters say and do. Knowing that it was Jacob’s nemesis all along is pretty earth-shattering. Learning that Jacob’s nemesis is also the Smoke Monster, is just insane.

The ash is interesting, especially since it was found around Jacob’s cabin, and the ash circle being broken was how Ilana and her crew knew that something was up. Whether Jacob’s nemesis was being kept in that cabin, or whether Jacob was hiding out in there from him, I’m not sure we know yet. But the whole Smoke Monster revelation is, can I say, dope. Does this mean that all of the times the Smoke Monster appears, it was to do the opposite of Jacob’s will, to try and ruin Jacob’s plans? I’m thinking of when Ben summoned it to defend Dharmaville when Widmore’s mercenaries came to capture him. And didn’t the Smoke Monster kill Mr. Echo?

Maria speculates that, originally, Jacob and his nemesis must’ve worked together, perhaps he really was a temple guardian, or island guardian, as the Smoke Monster. After all, as Maria pointed out to me, Jacob does say they were “old friends”.

Others’ Temple

Perhaps the biggest reveal of all though is the Others’ Temple.

This is just an insane twist in the plot. They aren’t beating around the bush anymore: we’re on some crazy island with clear and active links to an ancient civilization. I’ve been saying forever that it’s Atlantis, but I could still be wrong. It’s something. The Temple is enormous and the Others seem to be a lot more of a religious faction than we’ve previously been shown. There’s a lot of ceremony and ritual, it seems. We’re made privy to a whole other command structure at this Temple with John Lennon and Yoko Ono running the show. I appreciate Yoko’s karate moves mid-way through the episode.

I don’t even know what to make of any of this. The healing fountain (where Ben was brought as a kid?) and the obvious baptism imagery with Sayid. The fortification of the Temple against Jacob’s nemesis—the black smoke was supposed to be a Temple guardian at some point, no? And the fact that Yoko and John ask so off-handedly if Jacob was going to join Hurley and the other survivors at the Temple. So they don’t worship Jacob at this temple, then who is Jacob?

Final Thoughts

A few last things are worth mentioning.

First, Juliet told Sawyer, “It worked.” Does she mean that the bomb went off and the reset worked? That seems to be what she meant, but how would she know and what does that mean? Are the survivors who are on the plane in the real timeline, has it worked, they’ve been saved, and they’re somehow redeemed by their whole experience (even without really remembering it). After all, John is happy, Hurley is lucky, Sun and Jin are in love. But then again, maybe not: Charlie is still an addict (a  habit he kicked on the island), Kate is still an outlaw (and making it worse on herself), etc.

Juliet was talking to herself, she seemed somewhere else for a minute, when Sawyer was holding her. Perhaps she was in her alternative timeline for a second and knew it must’ve worked after all.

And, Hurley. I suspect he’s going to become a very important character, as we can already see in these first two episodes. He’s the only survivor who made it back to the real world and was told by Jacob to return to the island. I suspect, and maybe this is very obvious, that Jacob knew he was going to die and needed Hurley back on that island to communicate with him. Hurley is the only person, surprise surprise, that can speak to dead people. Well, Miles can too, actually, but in a different way. Jacob needed Hurley, and Hurley is going to become a very important character. Good, because we love Hurley.

The final season premiere was a doozy, and worth the wait. A two-hour television episode is practically a movie and the production quality of LOST is just phenomenal. It’s going to be hard to find a show to replace it once it’s run it’s course, and hard to wait another week for the next episode.

Thoughts?

For the past week I’ve been working hard, behind the scenes, to bring back thecorch.com to it’s former glory, and then some. After wrestling with the purpose of having a blog, what I should and shouldn’t be writing about, and deep theological questions surrounding the meaning of life, I’m back.

Having a blog can be tricky. First of all, it’s a time commitment. Most blogs, according to the statistics, fall into disuse shortly after being created. Others last a bit longer before petering out. Mine was a on-again, off-again affair that was updated so sporadically its readership eventually fell to zero. In most of its previous incarnations, I lacked not necessarily the time, but the motivation: the drive to dedicate time to it. When my close friend Andrew recently launched a new, and innovative blog, he committed from the get-go to post a certain number of times—to commit to writing.

The second thing about a blog is figuring out what to write about, and what not to write about. As a teacher, and a public figure (in that way), I spent a lot of time thinking about my website. Sometimes I went to write something and thought, “Nah, that’s not something I want to share with the whole world.” Other times I didn’t know. Still, I even wondered about writing at all: who cares what I think about films I see, or music I listen to—who’s reading it anyway?

And that is to say that: We’re back in business.

Welcome to the new incarnation of thecorch.com. I’ve solved the first conundrum by deciding to write, and write often, and to commit wholeheartedly to it. And in terms of what I plan to write about I’ve decided, “Who cares!” and that my opinion on films, television, music, books and my mundane commentaries on life might not be interesting to everyone but if you’re reading them, then they’re interesting to you. After all, it’s good writing practice and that’s important too.

So here we go, on our own again. I hope y’all come along, too.