Tag Archives: Isaac Mathewson

A&E, Columns, Forum

Columnist discusses film versus literature

Leave a comment

By Isaac Mathewson

Whenever a film adaptation of a famous book is released, there is almost always someone who’s quick to say “It’s not as good as the book.” Others, especially younger people, will say “You can’t understand the film unless you read the book.”

This issue has been present since the beginning of cinema. There are people who defend either side, with some defending both as they are separate art forms that are equal in value, and others who say that there really is not much room for two, you have to pick one or the other. This has led to a rising conflict between the two biggest art forms in the world — film and literature.

The truth is that both of them have strengths and weaknesses and they should be looked at in different angles. Literature gives better descriptions as well as an opportunity to learn new things and create imagination, all while telling a good story. Film is more to be enjoyed for admiration for the actors as well as all the hard work that goes into the making and writing of them. Both are terrific art forms that stimulate the mind and help people think.

However, that is not what the general public takes issue with. Many people believe that film is solely for entertainment and that only literature has any educational or artistic value. I find that statement to be absolutely appalling, because film packs a great amount of artistic value and there are many great careers in the industry. Cinema is a very young form of art and many older people who grew up on folklore and literature often tend to dismiss it as overblown rubbish. Fortunately, there are many people who support film as they consider it a very important form of art and is a new look on classic stories brought to life in different ways.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, there are many people who say that movies that are adaptations of classic works can never be seen as their own story. They believe that books are virtually entirely better than movies. Again, I cannot agree with that statement because many films based off of books have worked perfectly well on their own, such as The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Gone with the Wind. It all really comes down to which version was really better, the book or the movie, neither one is better simply because of their art form.

Another thing worth mentioning is whether it’s necessary for an audience member to see the book that the film is based on in order to understand it. I say this as an experienced critic and writer, it is not. I have seen many movies based off of books, and I haven’t read the books to most of them. These include some of my favorite movies such as The Silence of the Lambs, GoodFellas, A Clockwork Orange,and even the original Godfather, and I can still get through these films just fine. Maybe some movies nowadays are for people who read the books, such as The Hunger Games and Divergent, and if that were the case, I’d like these movies less. But in all honesty, sometimes that’s the fun of cinema, not knowing about what you are watching and where it came from and seeing it in a new and different way.

It really all goes down to opinion. In reality, no art form is better than the other, just the work that they depict. The main question shouldn’t be which is better; books or movies? The question should be: which version did it better; the book or the movie. There are people who prefer one form over the other and that is perfectly fine. However, no one should hate on either because they are entirely different.

A&E, Isaac Mathewson

Critic reveals the summer’s most anticipated movies

Leave a comment
by Isaac Mathewson
Summer is approaching and so are the summer blockbusters. These past two years have been pretty strong on their movies, being mostly benefited from superhero films such as The Avengers and Man of Steel, and it looks like this year might be very good as well.
The following list is a non-opinionated list of the summer’s most anticipated movies;
1. The Amazing Spider-man 2: While the first film in the rebooted “Spider-man” series may not have been as good as the original Sam Raimi classic, it did satisfy many fans and leave high hopes for a sequel. The trailer alone seems promising enough, as well as its casting, with many actors returning (Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone), and several more making their debut in the franchise (Jamie Foxx and Paul Giamatti). While it may not bring anything new to the franchise, it will hopefully give us a meaningful story and good action, as well as 3-D effects.
2. Godzilla: The last time “Godzilla” hit the big screen in the U.S. it disappointed many fans and was poorly received. With last year’s release of Pacific Rim , many people have shown that they still have an appreciation for giant monster movies and many believe that this film may have a chance to make up for that disaster. The casting is good, and the visuals on Godzilla look more like the original. This could probably be the “Godzilla” movie we’ve been hoping for.
3. X-Men: Days of Future Past: Bryan Singer finds himself back in the director’s chair in this new installment of the ever popular X-Men series. This time The Last Stand and First Class intertwine and brings to us virtually every actor who has been in this hit series: Hugh Jackman, Jennifer Lawrence, Ian McKellen, Anna Paquin, Ellen Page, Patrick Stewart, to name just a few. It shouldn’t disappoint fans.
4. A Million Ways to Die in the West: While some may dismiss this film based on the supposed stupidity of the trailer, there is no way this could stay off this list. Following the enormous success of Ted, Seth MacFarlane makes his on screen debut as an everyday farmer who finds himself in a Mexican standoff with the fastest gunslinger in the west. If anyone knows Seth MacFarlane, they will know what to expect or not expect. After all, he’s a master of hiding treasure in a pile of trash.
5. Transformers: Age of Extinction: Michael Bay returning to the director’s chair may turn some people off by this fourth installment of the Transformers series. However, this cannot find a way off this list because of the enormous popularity of the Transformers. This film takes a huge turn from the previous installments because it does not have Shia LaBeouf; in fact, it has almost a completely different cast. With Mark Wahlberg in the lead role, fantastic visuals, and a different take on the story, this film will not only bring in huge amounts of cash, but possibly redeem the series.
While there are many other films that are widely anticipated this year, these are the ones that will most likely bring in the most money and leave the biggest impact on audiences. Hopefully, they will leave critics and audiences happy.
A&E, Isaac Mathewson

‘The Grand Budapest Hotel’ ranks among Wes Anderson’s best movies

Leave a comment

By: Isaac Mathewson

Written and directed by: Wes Anderson

Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Edward Norton, F. Murray Abraham, Willem Dafoe

Rated R

My rating: A

I have always admired Wes Anderson’s work. His films, such as Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums, have been regarded as classics due to their dry humor and dark situations, as well as their massive casts of celebrities. This film has not only proven to be one of his best, but is also a milestone in his fascinating career.

The Grand Budapest Hotel tells the story of concierge Monsieur Gustave H. (Fiennes) who takes a new worker Zero Moustafa (played by newcomer Tony Revolri) under his tutelage. He is convicted of the murder of one of the guests and is arrested. Throughout the rest of the film, the two of them race across the fictional Republic of Zubrowka to prove Gustave’s innocence. This is all being told to an author (played by Jude Law) by the elderly Zero (Abraham), over 30 years after the events.

What really makes the film stand out is the humor. Although it is very dark and mature, the film plays along with the situation and makes it lighthearted and goofy. While all of Anderson’s movies contain this kind of plot, this film takes it to the next level because it is more made for laughs and it does not have as much drama as some of his other films.

The cast is what really makes this film work. While many come and go, they are all a joy to watch and they fit their roles perfectly. There’s Edward Norton as the army officer on the hunt for Gustave, Saoirse Ronan as Zero’s girlfriend, Willem Dafoe as the assassin who’s also hunting him, and many others such as Wes Anderson regular Bill Murray (playing a much more minor role than fans may expect), Adrien Brody, Harvey Keitel, Owen Wilson, and Jeff Goldblum. I always love a good movie with a cast consisting of many famous actors, which is a main reason why I always look forward to seeing Wes Anderson movies.

The film has a very unique style to it. The film was shot almost entirely in Germany and every shot of the landscape is beautiful to look at. The cinematography is the best yet in his films. The editing is also very different, as it is faster than what he’s used to and it almost looks 3-D, even though it isn’t.

So far this film has been gaining more attention due to its box office take-ins and media hype. I’m glad that it has, because Anderson’s movies tend to not gain a very wide release. I can see why, his humor isn’t for everyone. However, this film is not worth missing. It has a great cast, a good story, and is extremely entertaining. It’s one of the best films of this young year, and it has a major shot at this year’s Oscars.

A&E, Isaac Mathewson

‘Noah’ succeeds in visuals and acting but fails in story

Leave a comment

by Isaac Mathewson

Written and directed by Darren Aronofsky

Starring: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson

Rated PG-13

My rating: C

I have to admit, when I first heard that Darren Aronofsky of Requiem for a Dream and Black Swan fame was doing a Biblical epic based on Noah’s Ark, I had high expectations. It had a good selection of actors and it had a lot of potential to possibly become this generation’s The Ten Commandments. However, when I got to the actual film, I felt that much more could have been done with the story.

Perhaps everyone knows the story: God has had enough of humankind’s evil ways and decides to create a flood to destroy them. He instructs Noah (Crowe) to build an ark to shelter his family and two of every species on Earth in the hopes of repopulating a better world.

Aronofsky has had an interest in the story of Noah since he first became a director because of the amount of survivor’s guilt he goes through. Crowe really shows it with his performance. In this film, he is a man who has a great responsibility, but is also going through a lot of guilt as he and his family are the only people left in the world. There are moments when he loses his mind and even tries to kill his family as he believes that there is no hope left for humankind.

The supporting cast is first rate in this movie. Jennifer Connelly is well casted as Noah’s wife and his sons (the middle son, Ham, is played by Logan Lerman from the Percy Jackson movies) are also very good. There are also several new characters not featured in the Bible such as Noah’s adopted daughter Ila (Watson in one of her best performances to date) and Tubal-cain (played by Ray Winstone), who serves as the antagonist. There are also a group of fallen angels in the form of stone golems known as the Watchers that protect Noah, whose voice actors include Frank Langella and Nick Nolte.

The visuals look stunning in this film. The visuals on the Watchers reminded me of the Ents in “The Lord of the Rings,” and the scenes where the animals come into the ark almost look real. The cinematography is also great to look at, and the surrounding landscapes are breathtaking.

However, put all that aside and everything comes down to the story. While it does show a side to Noah rarely ever seen before, the plot structure is a mess in many areas. First of all, the film at one point takes a dark turn when Noah realizes that there is no hope for rebuilding humanity and that his family should might as well die. Although this shows how full of guilt he is, the end result, without giving too much away, is ridiculous and takes a great deal of depth to Noah’s character. Also, it bears little resemblance to the Biblical story. In the book, all of his sons have wives, but in this version Noah procrastinates in his search for wives for his sons, and in the end he is unable to find any who are good with the exception of one (played by Madison Davenport) and the film just pulls her out just as easily as she came in. If the first half of the film was partially about Noah’s search for wives for his sons, they should have given her a proper role.

Also, Winstone’s character does not have to be in this film. I know he was meant to add a villain into the story and to add tension, but I thought that Noah’s story of survival was more important than his struggle against his enemies.

This movie is not horrible. It has good actors and beautiful visuals, but I felt that there was so much about Noah and his family that could have been explored more. I can tell that Aronofsky put a lot of effort into this movie and I appreciate what he was trying to do. This may disappoint avid fans and scholars of the Bible, but I say that it is worth seeing just for the visuals.

Columns, Isaac Mathewson

Columnist shares his views on censorship

Leave a comment
By Isaac Mathewson
Most children at some point in their lives have been told that they cannot watch an R-rated movie or read a controversial book because of its risqué material.
These laws, however, apply to more than just children who are too young to understand the material. There are some images that the public refuses to present in fear of offense to others or even physical harm. 
In just about every art form, whether it be film, or literature, there are rules to what people can and cannot show. Although it is good that people take note to these images, some have taken these laws too far and many believe that these laws interfere with free speech. I am going to explain the problems of censorship and how it affects our rights as Americans, but mostly in terms of art.
For thousands of years, artists have depicted images that feature adult or inappropriate material. These include depictions of violence, nudity/sexuality, racial slurs, and drug use. These images are often strictly for adults and are not to be seen by children, at least not without adult supervision. In the early days of cinema, the Motion Picture Production Code forbade gratuitous violence, language, and nudity in film with few exceptions. In 1967, with the release of Bonnie and Clyde and the beginning of the “New Hollywood” era, the Motion Picture Association of America created the ratings system that rates a film’s suitability for audiences.
Many films, books and other art forms have been banned from the public for numerous reasons. In 1915, D.W. Griffith’s controversial film The Birth of a Nation was banned from many theaters and to this day many cities in the United States continue to ban the film from release. The same can be said for J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, which was banned from many schools for a time.
While the latter was banned mostly due to adult themes and language, The Birth of a Nation was banned because it apparently glorified the Ku Klux Klan. Whether that is true or not, it does not seem fair to ban such a film simply because the director is displaying his beliefs. It is also unfair to ban a book or any other art form simply because it has adult themes.
This brings me to my next point. There are many groups of activists that want art to be family oriented and nothing more. The most famous of these groups is the Parent Television Council, a Christian, conservative activist group whose goal is to ban everything on T.V. that is “harmful” to children. Many big-named adult sitcom writers such as Seth Macfarlane, Trey Parker, and Matt Stone have been the targets of the PTC. Macfarlane once stated that the PTC is like Hitler and are only doing this to spread their religious beliefs.
Religion is another major issue when it comes to censorship. Whenever a T.V. show such as South Park or Family Guy satirizes a religion, it is almost always the target of controversy. Perhaps the most controversial subject of them all when it comes to censorship and religion is the portrayal of Muhammad, the prophet of the Islamic faith. Muslim extremists will not allow anyone to feature Muhammad in any art form and death threaten anyone who does. What is interesting is that the South Park episode “Super Best Friends” featured Muhammad but did not receive very much controversy, but when the episodes “200” and “201” were released, there was an uproar from Muslim extremists that resulted in the episodes being pulled off the air for good.
The main point that I am trying to make is that censorship is overdone and activists are hypocrites and they interfere with free speech. Parents like to think about their children and what they watch mostly because they believe that it is their main source of education and communication. They believe that T.V. shows like Family Guy are giving them the wrong ideas about society and that they “rot their brain.” The truth is very few children ever do anything wrong because they saw it on T.V. and if they did, they probably were crazy to begin with.
It is good that we take censorship seriously and that we take responsibility of what our children watch. Nevertheless, there are still activists who take it too far and they hide their kids from the truth about adult material without explanation besides the fact that it is “bad.” If we do not tell our children the truth, they will never understand the world and they will never respect art. So I say this to all parents; if your child ever asks questions about violence or nudity in art or even real life, please tell them the truth, they are just curious.