[Review] Earth to Echo
I've never been a huge fan of E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. Sure it paved the way for lighter science fiction films (and help popularize TV shows like Alf, Mork & Mindy, and most of later 80s wacky sitcoms), but for as much wonder the film had, E.T.'s design itself is dreadfully ugly. As a child I wasn't a fan of the walking poop monster, but I liked what the film represented. It encapsulated childhood with a point of view kids really could connect with. But through the years, science fiction films have lost that zazz, that childlike mystery. Every film about aliens and kids now is a cynical mess that's tantalizing in theory only.
That's why Earth to Echo piqued my interest. A found footage film about a group of kids stumbling on an alien? And it's only rated PG? That meant I'd be able to enjoy it without waiting for the other cynical foot to drop. Thankfully, Earth to Echo delivers on that promise.
[youtube id="JMlcdEtAiBA" autoplay="no"]
Earth to Echo
Director: Dave Green
Rating: PG
Release Date: July 2, 2014
Earth to Echo is about a group of neighborhood kids whose lives are going through some dramatic changes. Alex (Teo Halm), Tuck (Brian "Astro" Bradley), and Munch (Reese Hartwig) are best friends who are being forced to separate when they're neighborhood is being torn down for a new highway. When a mysterious electronic signal makes their phones "barf," the trio decide to use their last night all together to track down where it came from. When the trio find the source of it all, a small electronic alien they name "Echo," the resulting adventure leads them on the wildest night of their young lives.
I'm usually not an advocate of found footage films due to wild perspective changes and excuses for shoddy work, and unfortunately, Earth to Echo isn't a strong argument for the genre either. Although the reason Tuck carries around a camera the entire film makes sense (he's a kid with a YouTube account who wants more hits), it leaves so many questions unanswered. How can a 12 year old kid afford multiple GoPro cameras? How can he afford spy glasses with cameras built into them? Sure there's a nice kid friendly logic that permeates through the film (suggesting you're not supposed to pay close attention to this stuff), but it's these little technical details that take you out of the moment. It's hard to stay invested in a scene when the POV is constantly shifting between the many cameras these kids have at their disposal. The worse part of this is there's an explanation for this that adds a nice layer of realism (the film is Tuck simply editing all of his videos together on his desktop), but it's completely dropped shortly after it's brought up.
To be fair, the real bulk of the film isn't concerned with how the story's being filmed but the content. And on that front, Earth to Echo is just wonderful. Although the dialogue can be a bit heavy handed when delivering plot details (there's a scene where Tuck just repeats the next beat of the story over and over until the kids actually do it) and it has something against silence (no room to soak in the atmosphere as someone needs to say something at all times or they explode probably), these kids all sound and behave like real kids. There're subtle bits like when Tuck is filming a particularly interesting scene he yells, "Hey Munch, get out of my shot!" or every one of Munch's lines being delivered with a lovable awkwardness (such as when they lie to their parents about their plans for the evening). And Brian "Astro" Bradley is not only a former X-Factor contestant, he can act. The script doesn't admittedly ask much of him, but he's miles ahead of the other three kids in the ensemble (with Ella Wahlestedt being especially awful).
Earth to Echo really captures the essence of discovery. The plot may only be thinly stitched together fetch quests, but it's entirely nostalgic because of its sincerity. Reminiscent of E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, the alien Echo just wants to get home (and it's much better designed), and even when generic government officials step in (complete with wonderfully awful dialogue), the goal remains the same. It's light hearted, the stakes are only as big as a PG rating (or a kid's narrow point of view) allows, and it follows through on one of the bigger plot lines set in the beginning. It's not always acted out or filmed in the best manner, but the story is genuinely entertaining. It's rare that I get swept up in a movie like this, but I sure love when it happens. I just wish the rest of the film was as good as Echo's animation is. Seriously, the visual effects are pretty great.
Earth to Echo is full of more problems than I'd personally like, but it's not necessarily bad. It's something to watch with the kids that won't bore you to death, will entertain you as long as you don't constantly question why things happen, and it's a movie where kids are kids instead of shells full of lines written by a 40- year-old man.
Earth to Matilda, this is a good movie.
[Review] Particle Fever
Science is a subject matter that most people, including me, would rather not wade around in. The insane creations and laws of the world all seem to take their toll on the feeble minds of the average person. However, this fails to stop interest in major inventions or discoveries that have a positive economic impact for all. We may not all express interest in science, but its omnipresence is undeniable.
As far as the science field goes, there appears to have been one theory in particular that has left scientists, churchgoers, and educators scratching their heads for years: how did the earth begin? Well, I guess most churchgoers will yell at you how it ACTUALLY started without even hearing other arguments, but Particle Fever would offer more to argue against it.
[youtube id="Rikc7foqvRI"]
Particle Fever
Director: Mark Levinson
Rating: NR
Release Date: July 1st iTunes VOD, July 15 all other VOD platforms
Particle Fever follows the likes of six different physicists from 2007 all the way up to 2012 as they work together on the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, or better known as the European Organization for Nuclear Research. For those who can remember, this is the large machine that would reproduce what happened at the “Big Bang” that frequented the news for years. This was the largest and most expensive experiment in the history of the planet. It brought together over 10,000 scientists from over 100 countries, some even rivalries politically. By the end of the over ten year old experiment, these brilliant scientists hoped to be able to recreate the events of the Big Bang and find the Higgs boson particle, which would essentially explain how all matter was created.
It wasn’t all fun and games for these hard-working scientists though. While their involvement may have been the honor of their lives, the upkeep with this 17 mile wide creation wasn’t always easy. Working 16 hours a day for years on end, it is actually surprising how they managed to keep their spirits up for so long. However, so much energy was encapsulated by each in Levinson’s directing, and a viewer couldn’t help but feel just as excited for this experiment to run for its first time as the people who were in charge of it.
The subject matter of the film is a little dense, yes, but when watching the film, it doesn’t take precedence of all it has to offer. Testimonies and beautifully displayed graphics from all of the scientists selected for the film clear up most confusion that viewers may have. However, this isn’t to say that one will become a master physicist after watching the movie. What I really liked about this film was its ability to make me feel like I was with these scientists over the years experiencing the same trials and errors that they all did. It’s execution was done with such energy, and I think this is what kept me going throughout.
Now, if you personally asked me how I felt about the film, I would praise it with high regard. Unfortunately, though, the density of the subject matter and it’s continual discussion throughout the film may come across as a drag to those who are not usually fascinated by the world of science. I felt at some moments of the film that it was kind of redundant, but at the same time the redundancy was necessary to make sure viewers could keep up with each stage of their large experiment. As far as documentaries go, it was most definitely one of the best ones I have ever viewed, and I hope that most will put their scientific indifferences aside in order to enjoy this optimistic work.
Mark Levinson has a few great credits to his name, but after watching this documentary, I can’t help but hope that this is something he will continue to pursue. I feel as if the explanation of science and its theories is something that could bore most, but there were very few moments where I wasn’t anxious to find out what was going to happen next. Particle Fever is a piece of work that defines a scientific generation. If there is any interest in defying religious values, definitely check out Particle Fever as soon as possible.
[Review] Happy Christmas
Mumblecore has been growing into prominence within the independent film scene in recent years thanks to a few notable filmmakers like Lena Dunham (Girls, Tiny Furniture), Jay and Mark Duplass (Jeff, Who Lives at Home), and Joe Swanberg (Drinking Buddies). It took awhile, but I eventually warmed up to the genre's focus on naturalism, whether it's due to the actors' improvised performances, the use of a loose outline rather than a traditional screenplay, or the presence of an actual film camera (16mm specifically for Happy Christmas) rather than a digital one. The aesthetic behind independent, low-budget films is the backbone of the genre, and it's surprising that it took me so long to better appreciate it.
Or perhaps it's because I was waiting for the right filmmaker, and that's where Swanberg comes in. Partially because of his talents as a filmmaker, partially because of the stories he wants to tell, or partially because he is now a Chicagoan, there's something special about Swanberg's films that I'm drawn to. Read on as I find the words to help express why I felt so strongly about Happy Christmas.
[youtube id="7VaaYbraOrQ"]
Happy Christmas
Director: Joe Swanberg
Rating: PG-13
Release Date: June 23, 2014 (VOD)
Following a breakup, 20-something Jenny (Anna Kendrick) decides to move to Chicago and live with her older brother, Jeff (Swanberg), his wife Kelly (Melanie Lynskey), and their newborn son, Jude (Swanberg's actual son). As Jenny attempts to rediscover her identity, whether it's simply by hanging out with her friend Carson (Dunham) or exploring a new relationship with the family babysitter, Kevin (Mark Webber), her presence has an undeniable impact on Jeff and Kelly's lives... for better or for worse.
However, whereas most films may take the easy "self-discovery/identity" route with a typical narrative structure with their protagonists, Happy Christmas defers from what's become expected and standard in a narrative film. Without spoiling the film, I'd say the focus isn't directly on Jenny and her story (despite her being the main character), but how her presence shapes and develops Kelly's character. Kelly's story is much more intriguing than Jenny's as she attempts to re-balance her artistic leanings with her newfound responsibilities as a new mother, but it's through Jenny's scope that we're able to see how those two seemingly opposite spectrums can work together.
Happy Christmas shares a universal appeal, but has an extra special element that Chicagoans can appreciate a little more. As a 20-something myself with friends starting their own families, I can understand and empathize (a bit) with finding the compromise between work and family, which is something I think most Chicagoans feel given the "grind" and "hustle" the city offer, combined with the "Midwestern family values" we inherently share. Given the indie, low-budget nature of the film, Happy Christmas also feels like a passion project made with friends, to the point where I was actually shocked to see a casual acquaintance of mine as an extra in the film (Erin, you really do deserve an award for being Best Stander).
It's because of Swanberg's ability to create a small film with a small focus with a 16mm camera that further accentuates that direction that helps make Happy Christmas work so well. The actors individually have their own levels of success both in and out of the film community, most notably Kendrick's growing star in Hollywood and Dunham's large success with Girls, yet they're still able to embody these roles and characters that allow you to truly believe their characters and make you think, "Yeah... I could see myself grabbing a beer with them." Granted, this is what an actor's job is to do, but when was the last time you watched a Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt film and realistically envisioned yourself holding an actual, insightful conversation with them? Again, this comes down to Swanberg's whole vision for his projects that makes audiences truly connect with his characters. And it's because of this singular ability that I personally am so drawn to his films.
The big question, then, is how general audiences will receive Happy Christmas. As somebody who finds joy in analyzing and critiquing films, there's so much going on with Happy Christmas, both narratively and technically/cinematically, that I loved just focusing on and breaking apart. However, for somebody who's looking for a weekend rental or an impulse purchase, you might be expecting something different. Yes, there are legitimately funny scenes in Happy Christmas, but you won't be slapping your knees and gasping for air. Instead, I hope anybody that watches Happy Christmas can appreciate the film for what it is: an honest look at familial relationships that can be both funny and depressing... sometimes even at the same time.
[Review] I Am I
Films that use memory loss as the central conflict can enter into some very interesting territories, like in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Memento, and Shutter Island (to name a few). The struggle, however, is to craft a cohesive puzzle/mystery that holds up in spite of such a character deterrent that disallows real character development. To find a way around this while still keeping true to the character and their respective ailment. In I Am I, writer/director Jocelyn Towne attempts to craft a touching tale about a daughter making selfish decisions to get to know her absentee father despite his unfortunate mental condition, but instead creates a film that leaves too many loose ends by the time the credits roll.
[youtube id="OVC2XIW22RI"]
I Am I
Director: Jocelyn Towne
Rating: N/A
Release Date: June 13, 2014
At her mother's funeral, Rachael (Towne) runs into her father, Gene (Kevin Tighe) who left the family when Rachael was young. She soon discovers that Gene is suffering from Korsakov's Syndrome, a form of amnesia that prevents Gene from remembering anything past the age of 34 and was placed in an assisted living facility by her mother a year prior. In an attempt to get to know the father she never knew, Rachael begins to visit Gene frequently; unfortunately, he confuses her for his ex-wife and Rachael's mother, Sarah. She soon begins to embrace his delusions by dressing in her mother's old clothes and playing the role of her deceased mother.
Right then and there, I Am I throws off red flags. Thankfully, the delusions don't go far enough to even broach the topic of incest, but does it ever feel like the line is going to be crossed. And this is due to Rachael's selfishness. I Am I's script justifies it via Gene's handler, Jonathan (Jason Ritter), allowing the visits to continue "as long as Gene is happy," and Gene's happiness is, in fact, elevated during his time with Rachael/Sarah. However, at what cost? The price of his happiness is ultimately teased towards the end of the film, but it doesn't justify the means in which the script took to get there.
Arguably, I Am I is a character piece between a daughter wanting to meet the father she never knew growing up. However, the means in which she does this comes at the sake and well-being of the very person she grows to love and care for. It's a character flaw I could never look past that the film doesn't punish her for. There's a climax in the film where you expect some type of true development for Rachael's character to experience, but the moment is lost thanks to the film's shoddy ending.
The presence of the supporting characters feels like an afterthought. There are notions of a romantic subplot between Jonathan and Rachael that inevitably just end with no real development (or elaboration, for that matter). Rachael's step-brother, Seth (Simon Helberg), is used for a very minor plot device. Rachael's much older husband, Keith (James Morrison), is used to drive the emotional theme of Rachael's longing for an older male figure in her life. Really, they're just auxiliary characters meant to beef up the film's cast, but aren't used that much.
I Am I had an interesting premise: a daughter pretending to be her mother to get to know her amnesiac father. Unfortunately, the film feels emotionally bland and uninteresting led by a manipulative and selfish lead character. This is one film you wouldn't mind developing amnesia for.
[Review] 22 Jump Street
21 Jump Street was one of my favorite films of 2012. Smart, quirky, hilarious, and proved that remakes could work if they're done in a loving way. When 22 Jump Street was announced, I was worried. Could lightning strike twice? Sequels to great comedies are usually terrible and unwarranted, so why would 22 Jump Street be any different? Directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller must have realized our concerns too since 22 Jump Street takes all of those criticisms and says "Who cares? We're doing this anyway and you're going to love it."
22 Jump Street is a ridiculously funny film that uses self-awareness to poke holes in the fact that every successful Hollywood film has to get a sequel.
[youtube id="qP755JkDxyM" autoplay="no"]
22 Jump Street
Director: Phil Lord and Christopher Miller
Rated: R
Release Date: June 13, 2014
22 Jump Street (which now takes place at a Vietnamese church across the street), has officers Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) going to college on a mission to infiltrate the school, get close to the students, and to discover the suppliers of a new popular drug called “WHYPHY.” If the synopsis makes the film sound exactly like the first, it's because it is! In a quirky turn of events, multiple references are made to the fact that this film is exactly like the first. As a shout out to sequels in the same predicament, Jump Street directly refers to the movie studio (as "The Police Department") when Schmidt and Jenko are told to do things in the exact same fashion because it was successful the first time. Unfortunately, while this may be the film's most hilarious gag, it's also its biggest problem.
While referencing its blatant copying of the first film's plot may be smart, it doesn't change the fact that we're watching the same movie. It's a like a mask attempting to cover the film's more noticeable flaws. When you want to point out why a scene or plot point might be funky, the film always tries to explain it away with "it was done that exact same way the first time." In fact, there are no surprises in this film. You guess every twist, Schmidt and Jenko's arcs are the same (they both separate as they fall into different social crowds, except this time it falls into place the way you expected it to in the first film), and with the surprise gone the film's greater moments are a bit less effective. But in the same breath, as much as I can complain about the film's similarity to the first, it's also just as funny. It uses this similarity to further delve into the bromance between Schmidt and Jenko and just have a good time.
22 Jump Street has fantastic jokes. From cartoonishly out of place things like Benny Hill references, a school named "The Plainview Red Herrings," to multiple sets of twins, each joke is delivered with ease and the improvisation is most definitely on point. Hill and Tatum are absolutely wonderful together as they've perfected the comedic rhythm they had in the first. Channing Tatum once again is easily one of the stand outs as much of his jokes had to have come from the man himself. It's still so great to see Tatum deconstruct his Hollywood image as the buff everyman into a lovable goof. He also brings one of the film's biggest laughs when he finally realizes the significance of one of the plot points.
If you love laughing at Jonah Hill, but not necessarily with, most of his jokes are self degrading in nature. He's more of a straight man to Tatum's goof this time around, but he still manages to provide many laughs with his physicality. The rest of the returning cast is in fine form as well. Nick Offerman does a lot with what little screen time he gets, Rob Riggle does great impressions, and newcomer (and Workaholics alum) Jillian Bell has a fantastic sense of deadpan delivery. But Ice Cube, with a welcome extended role as Captain Dickson, has to be the MVP of the whole thing. Every one of his lines are strong, and not a single moment with him is wasted.
Early into the film, you realize 22 Jump Street is going for over the top in the best way. It's ludicrous, but restrains that stupidity in a way that just makes the film one big party. It's not trying very hard to be a compelling film, but that's sort of the point. You're not supposed to sit there and poke at flaws (like I just did), you're supposed to look at the ceiling and sort of thrust through it. And besides, it's hard not to have a good time when everything is just fun to watch. I was laughing in large amounts, you'll probably laugh in large amounts, and then you'll go home smiling like an idiot. Like a good party with friends you've known for awhile. You'll know their stories and jokes by now, but that doesn't necessarily mean you'll be bored to tears.
22 Jump Street is a celebration of its existence. A well earned victory lap that openly mocks the fact that it was created in the first place. It throws caution into the wind, laughs at the fact it put in very little effort into the story, and even takes the bromance found in most buddy cop comedies to the next logical level. Lightning has definitely struck twice.
I didn't want this party to end, and I can't wait for Jump Street Generations.
[Review] Obvious Child
For whatever stupid reason, there was this general stigma in mainstream entertainment that women weren't funny. Obviously, this was just some stupid misconception as iconic comediennes like Roseanne, Ellen, Lucille Ball, Carol Burnett, and other female luminaries were just as funny (if not more so!) than their male counterparts. Nevertheless, this stigma floated around for the longest time, and it wasn't until fairly recently that people realized that women are, in fact, funny. Thanks to shows and films like 30 Rock, Parks and Recreation, and Bridesmaids, we have more contemporary examples that the ladies can bring in the laughs and the money the same way the guys have been.
I say all of this as a preface for my review of Obvious Child because I feel that Gillian Robespierre's film is just the type of indie comedy we need more of that transcends who's in the lead, male or female. Obviously, the success of Obvious Child is well-balanced thanks to Jenny Slate's performance, but I'll get more into that later. Simply put: If you find a theater playing Obvious Child, I highly recommend checking it out. Now let me attempt to explain why.
[youtube id="r2GN3wdfqbA"]
Obvious Child
Director: Gillian Robespierre
Rating: PG-13
Release Date: June 6, 2014
Donna Stern (Slate) is an aspiring stand-up comic who is not afraid to share a bit too much of her life on stage in the name of humor. Unfortunately, this causes her boyfriend to break up with her just weeks before Valentine's Day. To make matters worse, she soon gets laid off from her book store job due to the store's closing. One night, she forms a connection with a man at a bar, Max (Jake Lacy), who is Donna's complete opposite. Their night of revelry ends with Donna becoming pregnant, forcing her to make a life-affirming decision that she may or may not be ready to make.
In recent memory, Juno stands out as the indie darling that took something like unwanted pregnancies and made it the focal point of a whimsical, quirky dramedy. Whether you're a fan of Juno or not, it represented a modern film that allowed us to take a look at a somewhat social taboo such as unwanted pregnancies and made us truly ponder the topic without getting too political or preachy. However, whereas Juno hid behind irreverent non-sequiturs and pop-culture references out the wazoo, Obvious Child forms a more realistic and human connection between its subject matter and its audience.
As I mentioned previously, this is thanks to the combination of writer/director Robespierre's vision and Slate's performance. Slate evokes an everywoman charm that I think anybody can relate to. Obviously, I'm not a woman, but I feel that some of the conversations and jokes Donna has throughout the film is similar to the types of things my friends and I talk about, no matter how awful or disgusting they are. In a way, Obvious Child shares the same ethos that Judd Apatow films do, but better grounded and more human.
The downside to this connection, unfortunately, is that the characters both surrounding and opposite the lead, more specifically Lacy's Max, feels one-dimensional and not a fully-realized character, but someone who's only meant to serve as a foil/opposite to Slate's Donna. Here we have the rambunctious, wild, emotionally-broken Donna set opposite from the well-put together, straight card Max. It's a character trope that exists in almost all comedies, and it's one that I wish the genre will move away from.
Regardless, I think Obvious Child is one of the better films I've seen this year. Jenny Slate's performance in the film shows so much promise from both a comedic and dramatic perspective that I can imagine (and hope!) she'll eventually find herself in the spotlight of successful and talented comediennes on the same vein as the aforementioned actresses in my introduction. Writer/director Gillian Robespierre, meanwhile, has a knack for capturing not only the human side of comedy, but the comedic side of humanity, and I can't wait to see what she does next.
[Review] The Fault in Our Stars
Cancer sucks. It's such an invasive, destructive disease that ruins lives. There's never much you can say to those who suffer from it, either. Our human need to emphathize will lead most of us to say "Oh, you have cancer? My __ died from that" knowing full well that we'll never truly understand the suffering for ourselves. We're just left grasping at intangible straws that crumble the moment we reach for them. I just lost a grandmother to it two months ago, and had seen both my father and mother struggle with their own bouts a few years apart. While I've never had to face the beast myself, with how prevalent it is in my family, I'm sure my own fight is going to take place some time from now.
But where does The Fault in Our Stars lie in all of this? It's for folks like myself in the thick of it all, yet outside of it enough to necessitate an inside point of view. The Fault in Our Stars is not the romance it's advertised as. It's a poignant drama dissecting the debilitating nature of disease and how to surpass it.
[youtube id="9ItBvH5J6ss"]
The Fault in Our Stars
Director: Josh Boone
Release Date: June 6th, 2014
Rated: PG-13
Based off the popular Young Adult novel of the same name, The Fault in Our Stars follows Hazel Grace (Shailene Woodley), a young girl suffering from thyroid cancer who now has to use an oxygen tank to breathe since it spread to her lungs. At a cancer support group, Hazel runs into Gus (Ansel Elgort), a boy who once had osteosarcoma before removing it with a leg amputation. As Hazel has lost her sense of self and pretty much given up, Gus is the new spark of life that urges her forward. As the two grow closer, unfortunate events take place that test the boundaries of their friendship.
Disease dramas are a dime a dozen. When done well, you'll have a strong focus on the protagonist rather than the disease (Terms of Endearment, 50/50, The Big C), and when done badly, you forget you should care as the focus is strained between the folks surrounding the main character (A Walk to Remember, 65% of the Lifetime Movie Network). Basically, in order to fully appreciate how much diseases suck, we need to understand and emphathize with the main character and avoid putting them on some unreachable pedestal. Without that basic framework, we're left wanting as the film wants us to shed undeserved tears. Because in the end, it's not about the disease, it's about the the individual. And that's where The Fault in Our Stars soars. More so than any teen romance, disease drama, or teen film in recent memory, Fault is lazer focused on Hazel. The point of view is built so strongly, we're feeling what she's feeling. And that also means Gus isn't your everyday "Guy changes woman's life" found in most romances now.
But it's not exactly all perfect either. While the film absolutely nails creating two individuals completely separated from their disease (as in, it's not the only way to identify them), it falls into several pitfalls of the romance genre. There is plenty of overtly corny dialogue as it's almost too linguistically distinguished to come out of a kid's mouth. While Hazel sounds like she's a teenager, much of Gus's dialogue sounds like a thirty year old man looking back on life. While you can argue that disease would mature an individual beyond their years, it often took me out of the moment to hear Gus say something along the lines of "It would be a privilege to have my heart broken by you" as I found my eyes roll more than once. But in the same breath, most of that dialogue comes from the source material and, while I'm not the hugest fan of how cheesy it sounded, fans of the text are most likely going to love hearing it.
The film also has a huge pace problem. I haven't read the source material myself, so I can't fully assess what was removed or kept for the film, but there is a huge amount of time spent on non-sequiturs, or moments that aren't particularly necessary for the narrative to move forward. Although one of the detours features a brilliant cameo/minor role from Willem Dafoe, most of them don't attribute to character or world building. Fault could've really used the brevity too as when it does focus on character, it really works. As stated earlier, The Fault in Our Stars develops a hearty central relationship worth investing in. Their relationship is sadly realistic as it's bred more out of necessity and panic that their lives could end at any minute. Yet, it's incredibly touching to find them fighting back against the current. Also helps that Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort are perfect together. Every scene has the right amount of awkward. yet charming chemistry a relationship like this needs. I haven't seen Elgort in much before this, but I hope he gets to be in things far more often. He's the right leading man for these types of situations.
But the biggest praise for The Fault in Our Stars (which attributes for much of the final score) lies with its finale. A nice twist on my first expectations, and an ending that could've easily fit any other romantic film. Oddly, that's where Fault makes the most headway. When it reaches past the boundaries of the disease drama, and can easily mold to other films. These two kids are no longer just kids with diseases, they're kids stuck in a tragic love. Whether or not you completely buy into that love doesn't matter, either. Because while the major focus is romance, the hidden current in the narrative is fighting for survival, for hope.
The Fault in Our Stars is true to life in such a splendid way. Despite being constantly reminded of doom looming on the horizon, it's content to revel in the small pockets of serenity within a set number of days. And that's what my mother and father told me fighting disease is like. Rather than just survival, true victory lies within the gall to laugh in the face of death and live like you weren't struck with it in the first place.
[Review] The Next Black
The Next Black introduces us to the Brave New World of fashion, placing the garment industry in a futuristic context that most of us growing up with stores like H&M or Zara never thought would be possible. The documentary comes at the viewer in a minimalist, straight-forward and tsunami-like manner, similarly to the clothing industry itself, which holds promises of one day wearing the surface of computers- washable tech, soft tech, and silky tech - on our bodies.
The documentary opens up by explaining that textiles today still cover bodies and indicate social code. However, fusing fashion and technology introduces us to a drastic transformation in textiles- to a machine that alters the way we dress, or a factory disguised as a garment. While this idea seems too cyborg-like or OD science fiction for some, wearable tech is going to make its way to the market sooner or later, and scientists collaborating with designers are ready to tackle the breakthrough. While few interviewees are featured in this documentary, each is an expert in his or her field, and effectively hits viewers with numerous facts about the quickly transforming world of fashion.
[youtube id="VuPzdpudwhU"]
The Next Black
Director: Phil Marthinsen
Rating: N/A
Release Date: June 3, 2014 (VOD)
The New Black brings to the table the concept of smart clothing. In Germany, Adidas has figured out how to monitor athletes’ performance using real time, equipping their clothing with heart rate sensors and working on adding respiration sensors and other features. Elite sportswear is still in the “bacteria” stage, as is most wearable tech, and is focused on developing smaller, faster, and smarter platforms. The concept of bacteria is also introduced to the viewer in a more literal and concrete way, with The New Black suggesting that innovations can take textiles to the next level by embracing nature and growing a dress in a vat of liquid using microorganisms. This process is described as being much closer to brewing beer or baking than one of fashion, but can move efficiently from the lab to the market and also reduce waste. It opens up a broad range of possibilities for what fashion will be able to do for us in the future, potentially being able to protect our skin or even provide us with nutrients.
Almost more important than introducing possibilities stemming from the fusion of science, technology, and fashion, the documentary calls out the concept of “fast fashion,” which is fashion that’s mass-produced, has a fixed price, and is standardly sized. We often blame unethical brands and polluting factories for fast fashion dominating our culture, but The Next Black stresses that the most important shift in textiles rides on the shoulders of consumers, who critically need to come to terms with their place in the garment industry. It’s important for us to be cognizant of the fact that relentless production and consumption stems from companies needing to satisfy our ever-changing desires and needs. Change derives from buying less clothing, but also from caring about the clothes we already own. By being proactive with what we wear, we become proactive with our product, and the tangible experience allows us to develop a more emotional connection with clothing, changing the future of fashion on both an intimate and a grand scale.
The Next Black gives us this sneak peak into what the future holds for fashion in a fitting minimalistic and informative manner, especially considering how dense the reality of tech innovation is for generations growing up deciphering dial-up Internet. Going from having dial-up to having potentially digital skin is not a concept that can be taken lightly, especially by an age group that is still the beta for such drastic changes. While the synthesis of textiles, innovative technology and science offers what seems to be hopeful change in the world where fashion meets futuristic function, such extreme transformations call for a large amount of unknowns. We must be on our game as consumers to avoid being passive with these shifts, in order to enter this Brave New World on alert and fully guarded.