A Prescribed Fire

So, I'm on vacation this week, technically since this past Thursday, which in some way is the explanation behind my sporadic posting. It's been encouraging to get a couple of notes from readers (and friends), expressing interest in my take on certain situations and even in my Sunday Review (sorry, Alicia). What's worse is that I've had a couple of things lined up to pontificate on, and still didn't post, and so maybe here's my chance to rectify things.

I've never wanted to make this blog about myself. I'd much rather have it go through my experiences, rather than be defined by them. But I've been thinking a lot lately, for a variety of reasons, and I've been trying to slow it down, settle back, enjoy my time, and live life to the fullest, all while racing a race that had no clear start, has no clear finish, and for the moment, I can't see anyone racing beside me, and it's terrifying, because I've no idea if that means I'm too far behind, or that much in the lead.

I'm currently working my way through Blake Bailey's biography of John Cheever, and it's been quite the experience. All those thinking about leading a life of letters should be forced to swallow this book straight, no chaser at some point. I'm terrified and excited for my future, and I've got that split of nausea and adrenaline going, and I'm questioning just about every decision I've made, writing-wise, thus far.

Sometimes, when a forest catches fire, rather than work to extinguish the flames as quickly as possible, the fire is allowed to burn in a controlled state. Sometimes, these fires are even planned--they are referred to as "prescribed fires." The process of burning everything down to the roots is healthy for the ecosystem. Changes occur, all with its own value.

So consider me currently undergoing a prescribed fire, teeter-tottering on the edge of favorable wind patterns.

And don't be too shocked to find this in a story at some point.

Nothing is sacred.

*

So the reason this sob-fest is adorned with a poster of Public Enemies is because Danielle and I saw it yesterday. On a numbered scale, I'd give it a 7. On a letter scale, I'd give it a B-. On a See It/Don't See It/Rent It/Netflix It scale, I'd give it a Rent It.

The acting is first-class, the dialogue is relatively cringe-free (and I'm being cynical here), and the action is well done--well shot and well executed. The shoot-outs in Public Enemies were presented in a way I'd never seen before. That being said, I had two major issues:

-First, the movie was shot with digital cameras. And while I understand that Michael Mann has done this before, I could not get past the "something's different/it's super clear!/but it seems wrong" feeling for most of the film. Public Enemies should have been sepia-toned (think Saving Private Ryan's green feel or Mystic River's blue feel). It should have been gritty (there are lots of shots of flat, dusty roads and fields, and men wearing three piece suits in the middle of summer, yet I never felt dirty or sweaty). Instead, it felt like a 48 Hours crime reenactment--every motion and glance was crystalline. And the fact that mostly hand-held cameras were used only highlighted the strange digital element, as nothing ever seemed to be out of focus (intentional or not).

-Second, and even bigger than the digital cameras, is the fact that Public Enemies is--flat--for lack of a better word. There are no underlying themes, goals, or victories. What you see is what you get. And if that sounds appealing to you, here's the kicker--this is exactly why Public Enemies will fall through the cracks.

I recognize that not everybody goes to the movies looking for "a bigger meaning." Fine. Trouble is, Public Enemies is far too slow for a shoot 'em up/chase movie, and doesn't dig deep enough to be something more. We get a bunch of big names--John Dillinger, Melvin Purvis, Baby-Face Nelson, Pretty Boy Floyd, Edgar J. Hoover, Frank Nitti--but nothing more.

No rationales, no explanations.

And we know they exist. There's a reason Dillinger became a folk hero. There's a reason this period was punctuated by celebrity thieves. There's a reason the FBI entered the modern era then, and there were reasons behind the actions of those involved.

By doing some reading, I found out those reasons.

Just don't go see Public Enemies expecting to find them.

*

This has been an interesting summer, movie-wise, already:

-First, we had Lou Lumenick's review-embargo breaking (negative) review of Public Enemies, which then became a retraction, which then became a story. I wonder if such a big deal would have been made had it been a positive review?

-Then (or maybe before) came Transformers: The Revenge of the Fallen. If you smelled something funny the past few weeks, it was most likely the shit storm that was rained down upon T:RotF by critics, including this scathing piece by Roger Ebert, which begins:

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" is a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments.

-Then (or maybe before all of this. God, my sequencing is off today), is the turmoil that the G.I. Joe movie has been going through. The director was fired, or maybe just PNG'd from the set, or maybe had creative control stripped, or whatever. Regardless, none of the three can be all that good. Here's one of the many articles available chronicling the sad tale.

-Last, but certainly not least, came the news that the nominee pool for the Best Picture Oscar would be increased from five to ten. Surely this was done for monetary reasons (Now out on Blu-ray and DVD, the Academy-Award nominee...), but I'm yet to decide how I feel about this. Only time will tell.

*

That's all for now. I've got a vacation to enjoy. Be good, everyone.

More soon.

JS