Director Profile: J.J. Abrams

Wherein I rank every widely available, feature-length, film of a specific director of my choosing. I have not seen many directors’ entire filmographies, so this may not be too long of a running feature. But I’m bored and I don’t feel like forming two teams of fictional baseball players. Let’s do somebody easy with only two movies (and I think Harry has seen both of them!). Here’s J.J. Abrams.

He’s got, like, 11 television directorial credits – most of which of I have not seen – so I’m not sure if I feel right about doing this. I can’t accurately judge someone’s film directing abilities based on two features, right? Too bad. I saw Star Trek a week ago and M:i:III about two week ago, so I’m doing this.

First, I’ll do my best to address some of his TV work. I’ve never seen, nor heard anything about Felicity. The only thing I remember about Alias is a teaser that ran during some Super Bowl that featured Jennifer Garner getting out of a pool and removing her bikini top with her back to the camera. So, I guess you could say I’m a huge Alias fan. I am not a huge fan of Lost. A friend burnt me a copy of the first season. I watched the first 15 episodes and couldn’t stand it. Something interesting would happen in one episode and then it would be ignored in the next. I’ve heard great things about later episodes (Questions get answered.) and the show definitely has a devoted audience, but I do not have the patience for it. Also, Abrams directed one episode of The Office in 2007 (season 3, episode 17, “Cocktails”). I didn’t notice anything Abramsy (No, I can’t define that.).

Now, for the stuff I can have an opinion on:

2. Mission: Impossible III
Mission: Impossible III puts me in a tough spot. Can I buy the third part of a trilogy without ever buying the first two? I didn’t love the M:I I or M:I II. I did love this one. There’s something about Philip Seymour Hoffman acting like Tom Cruise acting like Philip Seymour Hoffman. In his review of MI3 (a movie that refuses to be abbreviated), Roger Ebert wrote, “Either you want to see mindless action and computer-generated sequences executed with breakneck speed and technical precision, or you do not.” Sometimes that is exactly what I want.

1. Star Trek
A lot of people have called it “this year’s Iron Man”. That’s fair. Star Trek is a lot of fun. It’s intelligent, funny, and wildly entertaining. It’s also launching careers. Chris Hemsworth, who was James Kirk’s father in the opening scene, has already signed on to play Thor. And Chris Pine proved himself as a charismatic actor, who will surely be in the running for all blockbuster leading roles.

Upcoming Projects
Abrams has been attached to all sorts of stuff. Earlier this year, he, according to IMDb, just finished Anatomy of Hope. An HBO series based on a book by someone named Jerome Groopman. It’s a “medical drama.” I will never see an episode. IMDb lists his next film as Untitled Hunter Scott Project. Hunter Scott’s website will give you most of the information you’ll need, “Combining elements of the past and present, the drama would focus on the 12 year old boy and his relationship with one of the [USS Indianapolis'] survivors, whom he forces to deal with the haunting events of 1945.” Abrams has also been attached to adapt and produce Stephen King’s Dark Tower series since 2007. The books are so popular that no matter how the film turns out people will be disappointed.

Abrams was extensively involved in 2008’s Cloverfield, a movie I like even more than the two listed above. A sequel is said to be in the works for that, as well as (of course) Star Trek. He probably will not direct either film.

Abrams is a genius. He understands what audiences want to see. He knows exactly how to attract audiences to anyhting. Who else could made Star Trek marketable on MTV? I’ve embedded a video at the end of this post. Really, if I had never seen that video, I would not be writing this half-assed “Director Profile”. Watch the video. It is 18 minutes long, but it’s worth the time. Abrams acknowledges and is not afraid of the idea that amateurs are now able to acquire tools comparable to what professionals use. He encourages you to “go make your movie.”

Director Profile: Darren Aronofsky

Wherein I rank every widely available, feature-length, film of a specific director of my choosing. I have not seen many directors’ entire filmographies, so this may not be too long of a running feature. But I’m bored and I don’t feel like dissecting the propaganda in Michael Moore movies right now. Let’s start with Darren Aronofsky and his four movies.

40-year-old Darren Aronofsky is a master of art house cinema. All of his films are built upon basic human emotions. He takes depressing subjects and uses his craft to portray them in a daring, occasionally unpleasant, way.

4. Requiem for a Dream
I hate Requiem for a Dream. It’s preachy, overly dramatic, and showcases a, in my mind, boring culture. The movie, however, is extraordinarily well put together. Ellen Burstyn is astounding in her “story”. She is the heart of the film.

My hatred stems from a scene showing a doctor neglecting service to someone (He just looks at the person and sends him to prison. It’s retarded.) and from the reaction many people have to the movie (Not really the movie’s fault, I realize.). The movie is similar in subject and acclaim to Danny Boyle's Trainspotting (which I also did not like). I tend to hate things that are overwhelmingly praised by people in my age group. When I talk to others about it, they use words like “subtle” and “life-like”. Granted, I speak to a lot of idiots in my line of work. (Sometimes it’s tough being a fighter pilot who wrestles megalodons for show. The blue guy waving is me. Hi, Sweeney!) Requiem for a Dream is definitely not subtle. It is blatantly anti-drug (which is not a bad thing). People never bring up anything good about the movie. They simply focus on the rebellious points they think it is trying to make.

If you have the time, you can actually watch it right now on Hulu. By all means, form your own opinion. Let me know. I won’t be offended.

(Noteworthy Note: Jared Leto is terrible. Dreamy, but terrible.)

3. The Fountain
The Fountain is about… okay, I do not know what it’s about. Uh. Love, I guess? Yeah, love. It plays with time and is confusing. The “fountain” may be the Fountain of Youth or it may be about three entirely different Hugh Jackman characters. I’m not sure. Like Danny Boyle’s Sunshine (a few years later), it is visually stunning.

2. π
I think π was the first black and white movie I ever willingly watched (of course, it was made 1999). According to the DVD features, Aronofsky made this movie for $60,000 he had gathered from his family and friends. Each person contributed around $100 and was returned $150 when the film was bought by a studio. It’s a stylish (very high contrast) and effective thriller. As with the previous movies on this list, I’m not sure what is really happening within the reality of the film—which makes for rewarding re-watching.

1. The Wrestler
I love The Wrestler. It is so rare to see people who are good at and happy with their jobs in movies. This movie is full of them. The wrestlers, played mostly by real people (not actors), are perfectly content with their own personality and their in-the-ring persona. The wrestling “shop talk” blew me away as a former pro wrestling viewer (it’s been more than six years, I swear). It is all about entertaining their audience.

I do not have the writing ability to adequately praise Mickey Rourke’s performance. He’s good. He’s great. If I had to invent a word to describe his performance it would be “tremawesensationalifying.” During awards season, it was popular among critics to say that Rourke’s performance was much better than the movie. I disagree. The performance is the movie. Having just watched The Wrestler again, I think I can happily say it was my favorite movie of 2008.

Upcoming Project(s)
RoboCop
Yeah. Really. I have never seen a RoboCop movie, but I would assume that many would find Aronofsky an odd choice. Of course, you could say that about any of his movies. He always surprises. I have no idea how far this is into production (or even if it has started). It may never happen. Aronofsky was once slated to direct an adaptation of Frank Miller’s Batman: Year One (SOURCE) and Alan Moore’s Watchmen (SOURCE). Obviously, he did not make either of those movies (and I am a happy man!).

Final Word
I compared two of Aronofsky’s movies to Danny Boyle’s work. They both are always able to translate their style to any environment. Regardless of the subject, Aronofsky has an uncanny ability to capture an appropriate tone for his films. He has dealt with emotions that are personal and difficult among everyone: stress, addiction, love, and loneliness. These things can make his movies tough to watch. Nevertheless, Darren Aronofsky has shown a supreme understanding of the art of film throughout his career, and with The Wrestler, he has established himself as a director I will always pay (ha!) to see.