Farewell Walt and Jesse: A TV Viewer’s Epilogue to the Baddest and the Best

Like almost every episode in its final season, the conclusion to Breaking Bad was always about the journey rather than the destination.  Those expecting a grand scheme; a major twist or turn that would unhinge the preceding 61 episodes were destined to be go to bed feeling upset.  However, creator/writer/director/mastermind Vince Gilligan never promised to pull the carpet from underneath his vehement (and constantly expanding) viewing audience.  He set out to tell a story — albeit a six-year, five season, opus.  We saw two characters slowly change, grow, and erode before our eyes.  Within its somewhat short run, there has never been a television show with so many quotable lines, so many memorable moments.  Breaking Bad has become to television what The Godfather had done to film: created a saga with a wealth of brilliant performances and stirring moments that will stick with us long after its over.

What Makes A Classic?

“Classic – of the first or highest quality, class, or rank.”  Dictionary.com

What is a classic? 

Well, there was a time when the cable network, TNT, used to gloat about its “new classics” line-up.  This included movies like Back to the Future, Top Gun, Shawshank Redemption, even The Lord of the Rings trilogy.  Movies released within the last decade were given an honor that’s usually afforded to the likes of Casablanca and Citizen Kane.  Was it safe to decree any of these actual classics?  Has enough time passed to which we can comfortably seat Humphry Bogart next to the likes of Gollum?  One could argue most of these films have earned the brand, although some critics and other aficionados (snobs) wouldn’t dare utter the names of Don Corleone and “Iceman” in the same breath. 

Classic is a word used liberally.  We sometimes use to refer back to entertainment that dazzled us during an earlier time, but now are merely relics from another era.  Some are merely staples in our heart based on how we remember them – not what they really are.  

I had a reawakening to 80s cinema — my childhood — recently.  The Carolina Theatre in Durham held its annual Escapism Film Festival: a weeklong extravaganza filled with dozens of films that tickled my nostalgia.   I was given a theater seat to manhy childhood gems — and given a prime opportunity to reassess each with a fresh adult perspective.    

One of my first screening was for George Lucas’ 1988 fantasy, Willow.  Well, I rekindled the same discomfort I felt during my preteens: this film is no classic.  (Actually, it isn’t very good…period.)   Its age revealed the cracks underneath its ugly crevice; its surprisingly uninspired story and characters; its humor was lousy; its much-touted spectacle was no longer rousing.    

However, on this same day, I was privileged to revisit another fantasy, 1987’s more comedic (and much more cherished), The Princess Bride.  The audience turnout was unbelievable, roughly 500-600 in attendance for my screening alone.  There was audience members dressed as the romance leads Wesley and Buttercup as well as the loveable giant, Fezzik. 

In keeping with Escapism tradition, the show started with a theatrical trailer for another film that would have been released during the same year.  In this case, it was Dirty Dancing, a film I never loved, yet it remains a coveted gem for the female demographic.  The moment the preview revealed Patrick Swayze’s trademark flowing hair and buttoned-down shirt, you could feel the collected awe – the kind that sighs you’d hear whenever Taylor Lautner removed his shirt during a Twilight film.  To many, Dirty Dancing epitomizes the definition of classic. 

Then Princess Bride played and received constant wave of laughter and applause, starting when Peter Falk’s unnamed grandfather strolled in Fred Savage’s bedroom.  There was also the very faint sound that only comes when hundreds of people grin simultaneously.  There were the expected cheers, such as when Inigo uttered probably the longest quotable line in the history of cinema, “Hello.  My name is Inigo Montoya.  You killed my father.  Prepare to die!”  (OK, perhaps Roddy Piper’s “bubblegum” quote from They Live is longer.)

But the best response was saved for end during Falk’s exit when bestows his warm closing line – staring right into the audience, “As you wish…” It was an emotional moment.  We all felt its deeper meaning; three words that spoke volumes and reinvigorated our immortal love for a good old story — one that reaches out and touches our souls.   It echoed even more profoundly today than it did in 1987.  This…was a classic.   

Later, after I had posted my last blog on 2015’s theatrical lineup, I decided to revisit the Back to the Future films for pure nostalgia – and laugh at all the false promises (hover boards, flying cars…) 

1985’s Back to the Future.  A Classic?  For certain!

I firmly believe the first installment is a classic.  The films dated elements actually enhance the story, not deter it.  The references to 1985’s culture beautifully clash with our present world as does the strange world of 1955 where (or should I say when) our hero, Marty McFly, is accidentally sent.  The moments when Marty encounters his teenage parents is strange, unbelievably funny, and surprisingly touching.  There are the crowd-pleasing moments; the school bully getting knocked out or the last-second return to the future are all trademark 1980s cheeseball moments.  Yet, despite all this, I always felt that Back to the Future rewards us with multiple viewings and says a lot about relationships and the immortal, sometimes strange, turbulent bonds and traits shared between parents and children.  It reflected a kind of innocent poignancy that we’d see in any of Frank Capra’s films.  You know?   The classics. 

Of course, when Back to the Future hit theaters in 1985, it was a smash, destroying records and becoming the biggest hit of the year.  However, it only won a single technical Oscar win along and garnered three additional nominations.  It’s one major accolade was a screenplay nomination.  But the film was not in contention for Best Picture.  The actual nominees were Witness, Prizzi’s Honor, Kiss of the Spider Woman, The Color Purple and the winner Out of Africa. 

1985’s Kiss of a Spider Woman

Despite my affection for some of these films, I would choose Future above them all.  This comes after numerous revisits and heavy scrutiny.  It’s a crowd-pleaser, and certainly falls into the B-movie category.  But it’s also a well-told story, perfectly paced, wonderfully acted, and hellishly funny and intelligent.  And, after 25 years, it holds up.  We cherish it. 

There’s obviously a continuous line drawn between mass appeal and art.  But there’s been room afforded to movies so powerful that they break beyond the boundaries of being merely popcorn fodder.  I believe Future ranks along with Star Wars, Jaws, and Raider of the Lost Ark – all Best Picture nominees and AFI Top 100 winners – as a film the successfully succeeds in both – as well as Princess Bride.  

When I think of classic films, I always reflect on Roger Ebert who, during his latter years, when his voice had already been taken by cancer, was asked how he knows when a film is great.  Ebert merely tapped his fingers over his heart.  You just feel it.  It should be a movie that stays with you, allows you to ponder, and has the power to change you in some small fashion. 

I always believed that films should either dazzle our minds, our souls, our hearts.  Overall, I think Ebert was right — it all falls back on to the heart.  It’s hard to articulate, but I’ve always believed in a bond that connects the mind with the heart.  For example, I can watch 2001: A Space Odyssey and feel something that tells me it’s a masterpiece, even if it’s built firmly around ideas instead of emotions.  Somehow, the ideas trickle down into something that fixates into my emotional psyche. 

Yet, 2001 was originally a movie I hated!  It was slow, disjointed, and confusing.  However, as the months transpired since my initial viewing, I began to reflect on it, even obsess over it like I would over a puzzle.  A second viewing removed some of my preconceptions and barriers.  I was able to accept the ambiguity and merely ponder.  It was also a film that baffled critics and remained under-appreciated in its day.  However, it has cemented its status as a classic in ways similar to Bride or Future. 

Naturally, it’s all based on subjectivity.  The factors are so many, such as the point in time when you first experience something; whether you were an adult, a child, or weren’t alive to experience it at all.  This present period has become a surreal time for me.  I’ve reached an age that films I experienced are slowly being filtered between those that are aged, harmless or a timeless.  I’m also meeting members of the younger generation who have neither seen nor (gasp!) heard of films like The Princess Bride.  I plan on letting one of these poor souls borrow my bluray copy.  Introducing these movies from my era to the next is probably the purest lipnus test to determine what lifespan these films actually have.  Are these films genuinely classics that transcend time or is our fondness being clouded by our nostalgia?

I suppose that tunnel-vision pushes me to hold films like Superman: The Movie and The Secret of Nimh in higher esteem than they actually deserve.  I have a feeling that had I grown up with Dirty Dancing or Top Gun, I would share the sentiment with so many Generation Xers. 

However, I have denounced pieces of entertainment from my past that was once cherished.  For example, my Dukes of Hazard obsession no longer remains.  The cartoons by Hannah and Barbara, overall, were pretty awful in retrospect.  So, perhaps my fondness for certain childhood treasures is based on the films’ actual immortality.

I’m certainly not open to lauding every film from my youth as a classic.  There are so many films from the 80s that I watch and remember fondly but recognize as trifle amusement rides.  However, time has been kind to films like Ghostbusters, The Princess Bride, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial.  I cannot deem the same for Best Picture winners like Gandhi or Driving Miss Daisy. 

1984’s Ghostbusters.  Great Film?  You Bet.  Art?  Doubtful.  Classic?

There’s the other side of the spectrum: a laundry list of legitimate classics that are considered “art” category which remains shunned by the masses who speak volumes about Back to the Future.  These are legitimate films that cater to cinephiles but remain ignored by casual viewers for defying conventional cinematic rules…or for being in black-and-white…or for daring to speak in foreign tongues and subjecting us to reading English subtitles…or for being so old that they don’t even speak at all!  Critics will champion this brand of movies as the true definition of classics and would readily decree that they stand shoulders above the crowd-pleasers I mentioned.

The debate lingers, but I’ll always support great movies, whether they speak another language — despite being in English — or appear, at least on the surface, to be entertainment rather than art.  “Three men hunting a killer shark.”  For most creative entertainers, it’s merely that, but director Steven Speilberg handled Jaws like a true artist. 

My tastes in film remain and personal definition of classics remain eclectic.  If the film touches me in some fashion, reaches into my soul and holds tight, it’s earned a place.  Popularity will never be the defining measure for greatness.  The Transformers films have grossed $1 billion worldwide and they’re crap.  I’ll leave it to another generation to determine those films’ legitimacy and replay value.  

I can only attest that the 600 who saw Princess Bride alongside yours truly genuinely shared something magical – even after all the years. 

Is it a classic?   

As you wish…

2015! Where We’re Going We Don’t Need…Those

It’s the year 2015!  Marty McFly, a teenage time-traveler arrives 30 years into the future and tours a strange version of his hometown of Hill Valley.  He spots flying cars, robot waiters, fax machines plugged into every room and a holographic preview for the upcoming film Jaws 19!  “The shark still looks fake,” Marty muses.  

Well, as we fast approach the actual 2015, promises of car flight are quickly being squandered — nevermind any promises of hover boards or self-drying jackets.  The writers of Back to the Future Part II couldn’t even foresee the most viable form of telecommunication: cell phones!   Nor could they have predicted such devises would become the most coveted item in the known universe!  (How many people read the news on Syrian crisis?  Now how many people opened news media the moment Apple announced the Iphone 5c?  I rest my case!)  In fact, the future is so incorrect, it even shows a stupid teenager grabbing for fruit from a futuristic kitchen tray, when, in reality, the kid probably grab something way less healthy — from a bowl.    

But a Jaws 19!?  Maybe the notion of successful film franchises reaching extreme installment numbers has become less of a joke and more of a sad reality.  Despite being two years away, the Internet (another unforeseen technological wonder.  Sorry fax machines!) has provided us with some semblance of a magic globe to prepare us for the coming future events.  There’s a string of announcements to help us prophesize the cinematic output of 2015, which will surely become the biggest summer in Hollywood history.  Naturally, they’re all established franchises. 

Let’s begin: 

Mission Impossible (TBA):  I defend Mr. Tom Cruise to this day.   Despite his recent stable of underperformers, I suspect Tom will be running victory laps the next time he scales laser sights (and sofa seat cushions) in his fifth secret mission.  MI4 was the best installment yet; its episodic structure allowed the franchise liberties to reinvent itself and incurred the same level stress-inducing tension across multiple continents.  It remains a passable franchise that will hopefully ride high off its rehabilitation delivered by Pixar director, Brad Bird for the last outing.

Fantastic Four (March):  The first two dreadful films left Fox with an uphill battle to climb.  A second attempt with only generate comparisons between this and the recent batch of successful team-based heroics,  which I doubt Fox can overcome.  A rebranded Fantastic Four is a desperate attempt by the studio to ignite a fresh franchise and possible larger universe shared with the X-Men, another saga facing its twilight years.  It simply five years too late.  Flame out!

Harry Potter spinoffs (TBA): I truly enjoyed this series, even if I always felt that it was essentially five films stretched out into eight: There’s new teacher who’s reveal to be a servant to Valdemort; Harry and crew mope around the library for hours and discuss their predicament; Valdemort takes four films to gestate from fetus to a noseless Ralph Fiennes and takes another four to be vanquished.  Now the saga is being elongated even further.  With the Potter group facing adulthood (both onscreen and off) there’s the obvious inclination to spring a new crop of films about the next generation.  But Potter’s world rested solely on the holy scriptures of J.K. Rowling.  Without her direct involvement — there’s promises she’ll churn out the screenplays, but I doubt she’ll have full authorship — there’s a danger that Potter’s successors will lack the same magic.  Plus, the saga needs time to foment.  Let’s enjoy the Muggle world for a little while longer.

Jurassic Park (Summer): I want a Jurassic Parkfilm that builds upon Steven Spielberg’s foundation that’s surrounded by 50 miles of electrical fence and the most aggressive carnivorous animals we’ve ever seen.  (Seriously, are raptors smart enough to open doors but dumb enough after already downing two humans, one of whom was Samuel L. Jackson?  Maybe they’d be satisfied if they got first dibs on Wayne Knight…) The Jurassic Park franchise had already run tired by the second film.  The villains were restricted to being single-minded angry predators who roared, destroyed and pursued.  The friendly herbivores were slowly demoted to brief money shots, which gave opportunities to parade John Williams’ fabulous musical theme.  An ideal Jurassic Park sequel would be a film in which the park actually opened and was greeted with thousands of tourists.  Obviously, we can expect mass carnage.  But perhaps the next installment will propel beyond the monster-around-the-corner gimmick.  It’s been 20 years and special effects are no longer dazzling enough to break records.  This installment capitalize on the a more original conception rather than the dull monster movies they ultimately became.  Otherwise, just keep these dinosaurs extinct. 

Star Wars (TBA): When the scroll reveals Episode VII, it will be ten years since the last Star Wars installment put a final ribbon on Lucas’ second trilogy outing into a galaxy far, far away.  But, unlike Harry Potter, this series’ newest trilogy might benefit without the involvement of its creator.  Although director  J.J. Abrams is not the second coming that so many “Lost” junkies decree, he’s a proven master at making fun, albeit disposable films.  The inevitably announcement of returning veterans Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher and a very cantankerous Harrison Ford may pose a double-edged lightsaber for the franchise.  However, Disney has maintained the integrity of its recently acquired properties (Marvel, Pixar) and could produce a saga that won’t necessarily reinvent, but might provide a respectable return to form and undo the damage left behind from the prequels.  It is a franchise I await with trepidation, but with a morsel of new hope. 

Avengers 2: Age of Vultron (May): I gotta concede that Marvel is not brushing aside its nerdy origins with a title like that.  Unlike Abrams’ Star Trek, Avengers aims to broaden its comic-book influence rather than its audience.  Given the original’s $1.5. billion intake worldwide, I’d argue that’s a safe tactic: You already got the world’s attention…just keep em happy!  Disney’s hold on Downey for two more installments was the wisest move: You can make do without Iron Man for a while, but you can’t live without him with Avengers.  The only obstacle may be the two more years we must wait, which will provide a series of tests on the longevity on its supporting players like the Cap’n and Thor. 

Finding Dory (June):  Pixar possesses the power to make me cry more than any other studio (or most life events for that matter).  But their feeble attempts to dip back into the ocean have caused me emotional turmoil in other ways.  All may turn ok for the Finding Nemo sequel with the return of original scribe/director Andrew Stanton, which may keep this fish from getting flushed straight down the toilet.  Meanwhile, Pixar’s most bankable sequel The Incredibles remains MIA and their original, daring concepts are being slowly swept away. 

Bond (November): One of cinema’s institutions remains licensed to kill after 50 years!  Bond’s most recent adventure was one of the best and the upcoming sequel’s plans to restore some of its classic Bond motifs is a welcome one — even though it leaves the skeptic in me wondering how long it will before Daniel Craig starts surfing giant tidal waves and absconding inside invisible vehicles.  Bringing Skyfall director Sam Mendes back for another adventure leaves me hopeful.  Now just give Bond a decent beverage preference (Heineken??).  I’m thirsty for some vodka martinis, shaken or stirred. 

Batman/Superman (July)/JLA?  Warners faces a dire franchise shortfall.  I cannot decree which decision is worse: Potter or DC?  Either option is a lame-duck, but Warner’s attempt to emulate the Marvel formula a losing battle.  I won’t bore you with my criticisms, which I admit grow as tiresome as Zack Snyder’s action sequences.    The studio’s questionable casting choices, its second-place finish, and lack of an original vision make DC’s crusade into the seemingly invulnerable comic-book craze may start to hit Kryptonite. 

Independence Day 2 (July): Will Smith’s recent box office faltering means that he’ll join the ranks of Harrison Ford, Stallone, Cruise, and Schwarzenegger with a return-to-roots career resuscitation.  But ID4, a film I truly loath, is overwhelming lauded by my friends and family for its seemingly innocent and fun ride.  If ID4 2 (or is it ID2, ID42??) sinks into dark, cynical territory (Man of Steel!) in keeping with the current movie trends, it will garner yawns and disdain.   Plus, Hollywood’s ramped world destruction model has worn audiences down in 2013.  The first film has demolished our favorite landmarks with director Roland Emmerich destroying the rest of them in his inferior follow-ups.  May the aliens’ ship stall before they try for a second invasion attempt! 

As long we’re discussing franchises, perhaps a Back to the Future Part 4 is within walking distance.  Despite the true 2015’s stark contrast from that which was prophesized back in 1989, there will still be movies, many of which are accompanied by a numeral. 

“The aliens still look fake!!”    

Defying casting expectations!

Sometimes the customer is wrong.  At least that’s what Hollywood wants us to believe with its most recent casting decisions — even when they blatantly conflict with the imaginations of millions of readers of comic books and adult porn.  By choosing Ben Affleck and Dakota Johnson (I seriously thought it was Dakota Fanning!  I had consult IMDB Johnson because I don’t know who the fuck she is!), studios and agents are basically lecturing to audiences in the same light as parents to their snooty teenagers. “We simply know better!”

Affleck’s casting is puzzling for the latest incantation of The Dark Knight.  But I remain optimistic based principally on Affleck’s wise career moves (and the studio clout he plans to gain for taking the part).  I simply cannot place his jawline in the cowl.  But I’ve — no, WE’VE — been wrong before.

The Batman character alone carries of history of questionable actor choices.  When Michael Keaton was chosen — immediately following his goofy exploits in Tim Burton’s own Beetlejuice, the fans were take aback and even forlorn.  Then George Clooney was cast, who, at first, struck many as an ideal option: His star was still dim, placing no danger of robbing his comic-book hero of credibility. Clooney exemplified Bruce Wayne’s charm, looks and eligible bachelor status to a tee.  His chiseled jawline seemed like a perfect fit.  However, it was the shorter, clownish Keaton who truly echoed the dark, tormented figure underneath the cowl.  Clooney undermined any fan hopes as he, grinning era-to-ear, uttered the words “I am Batman” to a dubious audience.   

Keaton’s selection is a perfect example of the film-makers and studios overruling the fervent fans.  Instead, the character was reinvented to suit their vision rather than stick solely to the written source, which remains open for interpretation anyway.  Naturally, the fans remain a perfect gauge for crafting a film, but they’re limitless love for the original also generates a tunnel vision that hinders film-makers looking to expand beyond its original confines.

This freedom isn’t just narrowed to casting and character, but also to story.  Francis Ford Coppola opted to remove unnecessary subplots and make a film that inevitably surpassed the original Godfather novel.  Just as replicating a book would entail a 15-hour film, casting choices must be made to serve the source and the director’s vision.

Certainly studios have tried to stray further from books to insure success at at the behest of the film-makers and fans as well as the non-fans, who they want to appease also.  The Godfather remains another example in which a very blond Robert Redford was being pushed in lieu of the inexperienced, but very Italian-looking Al Pacino.   Redford was a star and was bankable.  But Coppola eventually got his way.  He even surprised and suits by selecting the non-Italian — and non-bankable at the time — Marlon Brando, who inevitably created one of the greatest characters in the history of celluloid.

If The Godfather were made today, I doubt Coppola could pull such casting tactics, even while Ben Affleck parries away death-threats.  The Internet has given power to fans; they can clamor for actors mere seconds after a film project is announced.  Yet, despite the public outcry and seamless communication between producer (studios) and client (movie audiences), I remain dazzled whenever decisions are made seemingly out of no where rather than stemming from a systematic approach where creativity is overridden and casting and story choices are based on a collusion of focus groups.

Generally I would decry the current Hollywood system that placates to teenagers and foreign markets.  Yet, I always applaud any decision that seems questionable or downright wrong.  Both Batman and Christian Grey’s casting options was not cohesive to what most envisioned.  Obviously, fans will spout outrage regardless of who was selected, but I’d gather Ryan Gosling, Karl Urban or Jon Hamm would garner less hatred than Affleck.  Yet the studio made the call.  No, I don’t believe it had anything to do with director Zack Snyder who went to bed one evening and saw the villain from Dogma punch Superman during his dream only to wake and exclaim “I’ve got it!  Fuck Warners if they disagree!”

There is a change to these recent decisions will conclude in disaster.  But, occasionally these weird, almost surreal casting choices abate the hate and even mold into acclaim such as Keaton’s Batman or Daniel Craig’s Bond.  These were actors who widened the scope of how we perceive our beloved cinematic heroes.

There have been other decisions in which actors defy our expectations as to what they can accomplish.  When Bond was first being sold to studios, many thought of the already aged Cary Grant, who certainly carried the chops and looks for the role.  However, the casting directors chose Sean Connery, who rose many doubts to fans and even original Bond scribe Ian Fleming, who called Connery’s debut “terrible”.  Clearly, the Bond Fleming envisioned was out of sync was the film-makers.  Yet, eventually Fleming embraced Connery and even began to instill many of Connery’s attributes in later Bond novels.

Those hoping to see Ben Affleck mimic Christian Bale or Michael Keaton will be disappointed in the end.  My concern lies in what Affleck will do and if his take gels with how we want to see Batman on screen.  I hope the upcoming film will take risks and embrace Affleck’s gifts, even if these seem a tad limited.  With studio films, I remain a realist rather than an optimist, but I refuse to take the pessimistic route at this stage when I have been surprised by acting choices.  Inevitably the casting game is one of chance in which fallouts and set-backs can easily cause second choices (Harrison Ford got Indiana Jones only after Tom Selleck faced scheduling conflicts with “Magnum P.I.”), pure coincidence or even luck. 

Obviously, most would agree that Johnny Depp was an odd choice for a Native American in The Lone Ranger and the risk did not pay the dividends.  Occasionally, all forces (studios, creative forces, and fans) clamor for and eventually attain the perfect actor for the perfect part, such as Clark Cable’s shoe-in casting as Rhett Butler for Gone With the Wind.  When millions read Margaret Mitchell’s Civil War epic, they could all see Gable’s face.  The studio listened. 

But there will not always be a perfect choice.  That is the case for these recent roles.  Obviously there are casting choices so obvious that their announcement will imbue a collective “duh” from fans rather than a parade of bomb threats.  For example, Bryan Cranston is rumored to portray Lex Luther in the same film with Affleck’s Batman.  Cranston’s recent portrayal as the very bald and very evil Walter White almost makes his selection feel like a overtly simple selection; indicating that studios sometimes lack any imagination and remain risk adverse.

The Internet is filled with too many polarized views.  Studios are hoping to clamor for actors who will appeal to masses and not cost a fortune (i.e. which explains, partially, why Charlie Dunnam will aiming to seduce millions of mom readers).  As much as I like Cranston as Luthor and doubt Affleck as Batman, I always look forward to films that surprise me and prevent me from Rolodexing the film in my head before I see it on screen.  I want films to take me away to unexplored territories and I’m hoping I can relish in exploring Batman’s new batcave and Christian Grey’s…exploits…

In the meantime, let’s try to broaden minds and relax a tad, nerds and housewives!  Maybe the only screwjob will be what we inevitably witness during the screening of Fifty Shades of Grey.