I see skies of blue...

So, let’s talk about this new Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy movie. As you may or may not know, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy was a popular book series written and developed by Douglas Adams. Adams, who frequently dabbled in both television and video games as mediums to explore the story, was adamant before his death about getting the stories translated into film. He had even penned a screenplay for such a movie. Now, here we are, sadly without Adams, yet with the presence of the first Hitchhiker movie looming upon us.
Without a doubt, considerable attention has gone into the creation of this film. Months, nay, years of preparation have preceded its conception. Endless debates and ponderings over the need for such a film have perpetrated even Adams’ most loyal of fans. And yet, here it is.
After watching the teaser trailer and reading extensively on the film, I have a number of positive expectations for the movie, but a couple of concerns as well.
First and foremost, the best thing that can be said about this movie is the extraordinary casting. Martin Freeman as Arthur Dent seems to be coolly calculated, Zooey Deschanel as Trillian is nicely played, and Sam Rockwell is always a welcome presence. Throwing in a few seasoned professionals like John Malkovich and Alan Rickman is smart. Overall, they seem to be playing their cards right in this area. The names are recognizable, but thankfully not overtly so.
The second best thing the movie has going for it is the director, Garth Jennings, who is a virtual unknown to mainstream film. Gabe pointed him out to me as the director of Blur’s ridiculously hilarious Coffee and TV music video. Aside from that, he hasn’t really had much experience in the industry. The most notable thing that could be said about the last few years of his work has been his job designing title sequences. However, if the sense of humor and style present in Coffee and TV is any indication, he just may be the right man for the job. It’s also nice to know that the film will not emerge from Jay Roach’s questionable talents (who is now only a producer). Roach, who directed Austin Powers and Meet the Parents, was formerly a concern I nurtured over this film. He is a funny enough director, but in a purely mainstream sense. The Hitchhiker brand of humor tended to stray away from that realm and into the bizarre.

Those being the good things, it’s time to move into the bad.
The first bad thing is the occasional change having taken place, differing the film (rather annoyingly in my opinion) from the book. Most notable among these changes is the alteration of Sam Rockwell’s character, Zaphod Beeblebrox. Formerly, he had two heads, which was quite amusingly played out by Adams numerous times in the prose. Yet the producers and director have thought it apt to change his dual head into a much smaller head that comes out of his nose. I’m sorry, what? Adams’ concept of the character was absurd, but this interpretation is so far, unfavorable. If they are so willing to completely and utterly slaughter one concept, who is to say that they haven’t already abolished others?
The second thing that bothers me is the mindset behind the creation of this film; basically it stands like this: Since Men In Black worked, this will work. Which is an unfortunate way to approach the film. If they’re trying to mold the humor around the style of the Men In Black films, then it’s safe to say that they’ve completely missed the comedic styling of the book, and to a greater extent, Adams. Adams was self-depreciating, mocking, off-color and politically correct to the point of being incorrect. Men In Black was simply concentrated buzz, absurdity for the blind. Very little of the humor was rooted in cultural implications, which the Hitchhiker humor seemed to thrive upon.

Of course, the teaser trailer and poster have raised my anticipation. And there is a singular beacon of hope that might very well propel this film into being a very successful endeavor: Douglas Adams’ guidance. The fact that he begun working on the film, laying the groundwork, before his death is a very comforting thought indeed.

Back to the grind

Tonight is my first night back in school. I’m elated to be back, but I’m also unsure of what might lie in store for me. Whatever the case, I doubt that it will be as harrowing as last semester was. The first class tonight is Motion Picture Directing. There is no actual filming that goes on in this class. Rather, we are given actors and an outline and spend the rest of the semester overseeing various responsibilities, building up to the creation of a film. I imagine that once the class ends and we don’t have any footage to detail all of our hard work, the experience will feel very anti-climatic. Yet, it’s nice to know that I won’t be producing two films at once…again.

Tomorrow night is Cinematography. I suspect that it might be the most difficult class of the semester. However, the arguing principle behind this logic goes like this: Cinematography could be boiled down to a science, but Motion Picture Directing lies in what can’t be measured and tested. I guess it’s more of a touch and go thing with Motion Picture Directing, which might make it an exceedingly difficult class that could very well dwarf Cinematography.
And then, next Monday I have Screenwriting II. I expect this to be the easiest class of the semester, since all we have to do is write.

Good enough

Over the weekend I saw In Good Company, staring Topher Grace and Dennis Quaid. Now, I’ve recently stopped reviewing movies and stuff here on the blog, but I felt like I had to mention this one in passing, only because it came very close to being very good. Yes, it was actually a very ambitious film. The themes explored in the story are thematic narratives that Gabe and myself have attempted to explore in our own stories and screenplays. Yet, while he and I made noble attempts, this film comes very close to nailing the subject of corporatism and cutthroat business practices to the wall. The subject is very darkly explored in the first half of the film, which takes delicate time to lie out the difficulties corporate politics and over-ambition have on marriage and family life. It also sketches out the current climate of lay-offs and empty kindness in the workplace. I think what really sold me on the theme of the film was the direct reference to major companies and firms taking on the visage of self-propelled, self-governed countries. That fear has been predicted for a long time, and now that it seems to be coming to a full-realization, the filmmakers have decided to waste no time in pointing it out.
In Good Company isn’t a great film, but it has a respectable amount of substance and it comes dangerously close to the mark of being memorable.