To View Again

I figured that if I wrote enough movie reviews, I'd get better at it, but blogging is simply not the best way to get better at writing. Sure, I get lots of practice writing, but good writing is all about editing. It's about getting feedback from those who write better. With such advice, you learn to avoid phrases and lines of thinking that lack power, sound trite, and simply don't make sense.

I don't think it's hopeless. I try to keep things in mind, even as I furiously scrawl out words. I choose words that are out of the ordinary. I understand Strunk and White would object. They wanted writing to be simple and direct. Mellifluous words and well-worned cliches made for poor wordscrafting, and yet, I discover I enjoy it immensely if I choose obliqueness over obviousness. It gives my writing a veil of sophistication, and even my thoughts lack substance, the frosting sure is good!

Still, at times, I feel my reviews are inadequate. I want to say many things, yet, find it challenging to transition from one observation to the next. I want to avoid using the word "film" and "director" and yet find myself unable to prevent these words from littering my reviews. I want to have a consistent point of view, yet, realize that meandering from one topic to the next is what makes my writing, well, unique. Can sloppiness of thought really be a style unto itself? I wonder.

Let me rewrite a little of my review of Batman Begins. I ought to be able to evaluate this film on its own merits, and yet I can't help compare it to the Burton Batman. If you read my previous review, you know I didn't like that Batman. Burton's far more interested in Joker than he is in Batman. You don't know much about why Batman is Batman, and you so desperately want to know.

And I didn't particularly care for Jack Nicholson as the Joker, nor Kim Basinger as Vicky Vale, or whoever the guy that played the butler. While I didn't think Christian Bale made for a much better Batman--in fact, no role particular stands out. Perhaps I like Gary Oldman. Michael Caine pretty much does Michael Caine, as does Morgan Freeman, but there's something comforting at watching old pros, even if they don't lose themselves in the role as much as Oldman does. Katie Holmes is perhaps a twee too precious, and with her being the object of Mr. Cruise's rather deranged obsession, it's hard to separate the actress from her role.

What makes Batman Begins hum is its story. It's the story of a tormented man who wants to do better, is brought into a strange world that teaches him the skills to fight those who oppress Gotham, and then realizes this world is also not quite right. You have to admire casting Liam Neeson to play a dark version of Qui Gon. Would his role be less effective had you not had this previous role to constrast off of.

Films are rarely evaluated on its own. You compare to other films like it, and other films not like it. You relate the actors who play roles to their real-life persona, as splashes by tabloids. At the helm, the director tries to imprint his vision, should he have a vision, using all the cinematic tricks and conventions he knows, to present a story that you can only partly appreciate, because you never fully know the depths at which the cast, crew, writer, director have presented what you see. Many ideas flow though any good film, and even though poor ones, and yet, we, the audience are only aware of the most gross ones, the ones that stand out. And even then, only the sharpest of us begin to see what the director was trying to achieve, how the music, the image, the plot, the characters, the sensations all come together in one dark, cavernous multiplex, with the lights brought down low, the sound of popcorn crunching, the audience clapping and gasping.

Who can write all about that or even a facet of it, using words that clarify observation, that entertain even as it enlightens? A good review can do all that, and perhaps one day, I can manage to write one.