A Latchkey Kid's Take on Modern Cinema

By Travis Yates

What happens when a latchkey kid grows up to be a film professor? He’s forced to reconcile film form and theory with the cheesy films he loved growing up.

A Latchkey Kid’s Take on Modern Cinema is a collection of film essays by Travis C. Yates, most of which originally appeared as regular contributions to an entertainment website. The collection serves as a pop culture time capsule, laden with references to events taking place around the end of the 21st Century’s first decade. Yates blends cinema and current events to show us how film helps contextualize the world around us. It is a real-time account of a film scholar sharing his love of all types of films and attempting to find their appropriate place in the cinematic world.

The collection explores the work of more than 120 directors, examining both contemporary films and classics from the ‘70s and ‘80s, sprinkled with nuggets of wisdom shared with his film students. It is a fun, fresh perspective on modern cinema and a must-read for any cinephile! Yates is an Emmy-winning writer and film and media professor. He was raised on a concoction of Scorsese, Spielberg, and a copious amount of USA Up All Night.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Travis Yates
• Release date: Jul 1, 2018
• ISBN: 9780463460252

Travis Yates

Travis C. Yates is an Associate Professor of Communication at Quincy University. Prior to teaching he spent ten years in the television news industry as a producer, reporter and videographer. He is an Emmy-winning writer and moonlights as a multimedia artist, producing screenplays, commercials and short films. He is also the author of A Latchkey Kid's Take on Modern Cinema, a collection of essays and reviews that examines the works of more than 120 directors of contemporary and classic films.

Book preview

Prologue

Writing about film is a cathartic experience. It forces you to really look inside and examine your own opinions and biases. Where did they come from? How long have they been there? Can they be changed? Examining film (both form and content, as the two are inextricably linked) can help provide answers to these questions. The film medium is so much more than entertainment. It is a representation of how we view ourselves, a reflection of our society and culture, and when we critically analyze it, often it becomes a window into the self.

But cinema’s reach goes far beyond the Ego and Id. Research shows that media (especially film and television) can be as effective as school, family and church in creating our ideologies. Analyzing film and understanding the role it plays in shaping our society is akin to understanding our own place in the world. To know where we’re going we need to know where we’ve been, and to contextualize that, we can analyze cinema in the here and now.

That’s what I’ve attempted to do in this book. What began as a freelance writing gig quickly became a journey of self-discovery and exploration of society at large. It is our world, captured on celluloid, and its form and content are breathtaking to examine. Plus, it’s movies…there’s nothing is better than the movies!

And movies can take on many different purposes and meaning. For me, a former latchkey kid of the 1980’s, cinema was an escape. Video stores were my safe haven and movies served as worlds I could get lost in. New movies led to all-night sessions, sometimes watching the same film back-to-back-to-back, movies like Rad, Teen Wolf and The Toxic Avenger. But a funny thing happened between then and now; I became a film professor. I parlayed the love and passion I experienced for movies as a child into a career, researching it, teaching it, writing about it, and even producing independent versions of it. Somewhere along the way, I realized just how bad so many of the movies I loved as a kid were. It was a painful realization and a process I had to work through, but in the end, it led to an even greater appreciation for the medium and all its films. Even the bad ones. Or maybe even, especially the bad ones.

These essays were originally published as part of an entertainment website series. They are reprinted verbatim so please excuse the occasional references to prior works. I’ve rearranged the order from their original publication, so the flow may seem disjointed at times. Just consider it my own non-linear narrative structure, ala Christopher Nolan’s Memento.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), Dir. Martin Scorsese

There are ways to tell a story, and then there is Martin Scorsese’s unbridled style of bringing a story to life on celluloid. The renowned auteur has done it again with the Jordan Belfort biopic The Wolf of Wall Street. Scorsese teams with Leonardo DiCaprio for a fifth time to tell the unlikely story of Wall Street tycoon and racketeer who built a financial empire from a garage and took on the federal government in the process. The narrative moves at an incredibly fast clip with Scorsese pushing the filmmaking envelope, making The Wolf of Wall Street perhaps like nothing you’ve ever seen.

When breaking into the financial world in the late 1980’s, impressionable stockbroker Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) follows the advice of his grandiose boss Mark Hanna (Matthew McConaughey) and rises from unemployed broker to millionaire Wall Street firm owner. Using every trick in the book – both legal and illegal - to make his fortune, Belfort lives a wild life filled with girls, drugs and nonstop parties. When the federal government investigates Belfort and his firm, the magnate pushes back, risking his entire empire in the process.

The Wolf of Wall Street is a crazy, beautiful concoction of the right time, right place and the right people involved. Like a volatile penny stock, the film itself was a risky project, dating back to 2007 when DiCaprio outbid Brad Pitt for the rights to Belfort’s memoir. Warner Brothers was slated to produce the project with Ridley Scott on board to direct, but they dumped the project in 2010. Enter independent film company Red Granite Pictures and DiCaprio ended up with the director he wanted all along, Martin Scorsese. Without the heavy hand of a large studio involved in production, Scorsese had free reign, and does he ever let loose.

If you put Oliver Stone’s Wall Street and Scorsese’s Goodfellas in a blender and turned it on high, you’d end up with The Wolf of Wall Street. Jordan Belfort could very well be the prequel version of Gordon Gekko on steroids. DiCaprio channels his inner Henry Hill, flashing fits of wit and rage while narrating the entire film. DiCaprio admitted to Jon Stewart on The Daily Show that the film was heavily inspired by Goodfellas and it certainly shows.

The entire cast of the film is phenomenal. DiCaprio does the heavy lifting, appearing in nearly every scene of the three-hour film. Lesser known Australian actress Margot Robbie (About Time) also shines as Belfort’s temperamental wife Naomi. Rob Reiner is excellent as always as Belfort’s incredulous father. But it is Jonah Hill as Donnie Azoff, a composite of several characters from Belfort’s memoir, who steals the show. His character transforms from a flaky furniture salesman who happens to live in Belfort’s apartment building to a gregarious partner in crime, at Belfort’s side every step of the way. In a way, he becomes the Joe Peci to Goodfellas’ Ray Liotta. It’s a stark character arc and a brilliant performance that will likely land Hill an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor*.

If there’s one critique of The Wolf of Wall Street, it would be that it is just as excessive as its protagonist. Belfort’s narration ambles at times; sometimes he’s an omniscient narrator and others he’s delivering inner dialogue or breaking the fourth wall with a direct address to the audience. Screenwriter Terence Winter says the narration was essential to capture the true personality of Belfort. Apparently, there was some debate as to if it should remain in the film. As a fan of Goodfellas I’m glad it stayed.

Scorsese utilizes just about every tool in the filmmaking toolbox to the point that it almost overwhelms you. Yet it all seems somewhat appropriate given the exorbitant nature of the narrative. The film is not for the faint of heart as it apparently sets a record for the most times the F word is used in a mainstream film. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the film also had to be cut down to avoid an NC-17 rating. I can’t imagine it any other way. Sex, drugs, hard living, unconscionable characters and a larger than life protagonist make for an amazing story, with a brilliant director in the driver’s seat. It is an epic film and another instant classic for Scorsese.

* It did. Hill was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor.

Looper (2012), Dir. Rian Johnson

Every now and again a movie comes along that really resonates with you. You know, the kind that sticks with you days after you first watch it, with scenes replaying over and over in your head. Such was the case for me with this week’s film Looper. The tagline of the film is Face your future, fight your past, and the trailer gives little plot information away. I was more than pleasantly surprised with the film – so much that I might find myself looping back to the theater for a second viewing.

When time travel is invented in the year 2074, it is used by criminals to send people they want killed 30 years into the past. Hired assassins called loopers are there waiting to kill the transported individuals and dispose of the bodies. When a criminal boss begins to close the loops by sending the assassins back in time to be killed, Joe (Bruce Willis) finds a way to escape from his 2044 self to save the life of his wife and bring down the man who ordered his murder. As the younger Joe chases his escaped future self, he realizes his fate is not set and his actions could change the course of the future forever.

The beautiful thing about Looper and the reason it sticks with you for so long is because it is much deeper than you might expect (partially because of the ambiguous trailer). The film’s exposition is the only thing that echoes the information revealed in the trailer. Once the rising action begins, the narrative is full of new information, character development and plot twists at every turn. When the credits roll, I along with the rest of the audience sat still, letting the somewhat surprise resolution slowly sink in.

For a dystopian science fiction film, writer and director Rian Johnson (The Brothers Bloom) does a terrific job at subtly integrating technology with the gritty urban and rural settings. Most futuristic films feature mise-en-scene that screams look at all this shiny new technology, it surely must be the future! Looper does exactly the opposite. Both futuristic technology and the theories of time travel are both vaguely referenced, which allows the audience to enjoy the complex narrative and twists.

I have to admit had my doubts about the film convincing audiences that Bruce Willis is Joseph Gordon-Levitt thirty years in the future. I credit both Willis and Gordon-Levitt, who pull it off by eerily sharing mannerisms and facial expressions such as tightly pursed lips and a furrowed brow. It doesn’t take long to accept these two different actors are indeed the same person, and their early dialogue creates for some fun and interesting banter. Once the future Joe appears, it’s hard to pinpoint who the true protagonist of the film is, though it eventually becomes clear.

I highly recommend catching Looper in the theater if you get the chance. I’ll likely watch it a second time, as there are some theories I can only explore with further viewings. That’s one of the great things about the film; by keeping the plot at the forefront rather than dealing with the hypothetical elements of time travel, you’re left to wonder how much information is illusively slipped to the audience while busy keeping track of the narrative. The film is a refreshing spin on cinematic time travel while telling a captivating story that leaves you thinking long after exiting the theater.

The Grey (2011), Dir. Joe Carnahan

Marshall McLuhan coined the famous phrase, the medium is the message. It is that characterization that led me to this week’s film selection. The typical rotation for the Film School website is a theatrical release, a new DVD release, and a classic film selection. But the DVD rental business is changing rapidly, and the digital revolution has many brick and mortar shops closing their doors. New televisions come Internet-ready and online services such as Netflix has changed the way we watch movies at home. Dare I say...DVD's are becoming a bit passé.

In the spirit of McLuhan, I’m adding a new category to the rotation – a New to Netflix selection. This week I’ve selected somewhat of a polarizing selection in The Grey. I label it that because the premise seemed somewhat silly to me, but many of my students told me it was actually quite good. I promised I’d see the film after its theatrical run, and now that it is available on Netflix I made good on my promise and moved the film to the top of the queue.

A group of oil workers are stranded in the wilderness when their plane crashes in Alaska. Led by skilled sportsman John Ottway (Liam Neeson, Taken), the men must survive the harsh frigid elements while being stalked by a pack of wolves. Forced to leave their crash site, they decide the only way to survive is to take the fight to the beasts. With death seemingly around every corner, the battle leads to one final confrontation in the den of the wolves.

Despite my students' claims, I found that my initial impression of the film’s plot rang true. It does come off a tad hokey and formulaic. The film never decides just what type of genre it wants to settle into. The wolves are portrayed as the traditional horror film antagonist. Protagonist John Ottway kicks wolf and human butt like a classic action hero. His backstory and the relationships the oil workers build along the way play out like a drama. Sometimes the mixed-genre film works, but in this case, it doesn’t.

That’s not to say the film lacks conflict. Director Joe Carnahan (The A-Team) often uses sound rather than visuals of the wolves to build tension as the men are stalked by the pack. Though the early howling is slightly overdone, the use of sound is very effective when used in combination with the vast openness of the Alaskan wilderness. It paints a desperate picture that never seems to improve for the group. Diegetic sounds such as growling, howling and the cracking of twigs and leaves as the wolves approach add a layer of uneasiness to several scenes.

The lack of character development is a big problem in The Grey. We know little-to-nothing about the oil workers, so it’s hard for the audience to care one way or the other as they get picked off one at a time by the wolves. A lengthier exposition establishing a strong relationship amongst the group would have gone a long way to building sympathy in the audience. We do learn a little about Ottway as the film develops, building to a fantastic climax, but little else is known about the characters we are supposed to be rooting for.

I did enjoy The Grey more than I thought I would. The unique setting of the Alaskan wilderness and warm film look makes it visually unique. It is also surprisingly deep, with themes of faith and death throughout the film. The narrative picks up steam as it nears the end, but lacks the characters or plot to keep solid momentum. Neeson, who was 59 at the time of filming, has opened up about the rigorous shooting schedule during the winter months in British Columbia and continues to solidify his place as one of Hollywood’s top leading men. It is his performance that really saves the film and gives you someone to connect with. Stick around for a brief post-credits scene that only adds to the open-ended finish to the film.

Home for the Holidays (1995), Dir. Jodie Foster

The holidays are right around the corner, so this week the Film School website takes a look at a classic Thanksgiving film. Initially Planes, Trains and Automobiles came to mind, but then I realized, what could I say about the classic that hasn’t been said already? Instead I went with a lesser-known Thanksgiving film that celebrates family dysfunction in 1995's Home for the Holidays. If the phrase the whole is greater than the sum of its parts rings true, then the case here would be the family is wackier than the sum of its parts. Every family has its idiosyncrasies that aren’t truly revealed until everyone is together.

Forty-year old single mom Claudia Larson (Holly Hunter) is having a rough holiday season. Just before embarking on a dreaded trip home for Thanksgiving, she is fired from her job as an art restorer at a Chicago museum and her teenage daughter informs her that she plans on having sex for the first time. Rather than rely on her family during this time of crisis, Claudia must survive the holiday as the personal sibling drama piles up. While exploring her own professional and personal inadequacies, Claudia finally begins to come to terms with her difficult family relationships.

Claudia’s family is made up of a terrific ensemble cast that includes gay brother Tommy (Robert Downey Jr.), uber-conservative sister Joanne (veteran TV actor Cynthia Stevenson) and her timid husband Walter (Steve Guttenberg), and eclectic parents Adele (Anne Bancroft) and Henry (Charles Durning). Each family member brings their own baggage to the dinner table – from Tommy’s secret gay marriage to crazy Aunt Glady’s profession of love to Claudia’s father. It all makes for an uncomfortable family visit, culminating with what is quite possibly the funniest dinner scene in cinema history.

Though Claudia is the film’s protagonist, Downey Jr.’s portrayal of Tommy drives most of the narrative. He is an eccentric vagabond who serves as the family glue and the antagonist who constantly stirs the pot to cause trouble. His arrival sends the family into the kitchen to cook up a large festive breakfast, while his presence is a source of distress for Joanne and Walter that eventually leads to a fistfight. Tommy brings home not only his big personality but also a handsome stranger (Dylan McDermott) that helps turn things upside down for the family.

The narrative is moved along by title pages that almost serve as a journal of sorts, with titles such as Company Arrives and The Point. It can be a bit distracting at first, but works for the most part, as most title pages signal a new family member’s arrival. The plot duration spans only a few days, though the pall of despair that hangs over the Larson house makes it seem much longer.

Home for the Holidays is Jodie Foster’s second directorial effort (Little Man Tate being her first), and she continues to spread her director’s wings with some strong cinematic tools that aids in the storytelling. In the film’s exposition Claudia’s life is in shambles, and her environment and the shot compositions further emphasize this fact. A trip through a crowded airport filled with stressed out travelers, a cramped airplane ride, a twenty-four-hour illness and an in-your face chain smoking mother all add up to create a sympathetic first act for the protagonist. Near the end of the film, the airport is less crowded, the plane has fewer passengers, and everything seems cleaner and more organized. As Claudia comes to grips with the world around her, the cinematic world is presented in a more polished manner to the viewer. It’s a powerful psychological tool that can pass along implicit messages from the director to the audience.

I would call Home for the Holidays a dark comedy if it weren’t for all the family quirks that so many of us know all too well. It is part of what makes the holidays such an interesting adventure each year, and this film is that experience turned up a few notches. It’s a worst-case scenario that plays out in the most humorous way possible, but still manages to maintain a degree of verisimilitude. There are several scenes amid all the comedic moments that come across as extremely powerful and emotional. That’s what family is all about, right? Part insanity, part emotional moments that make it all worth it. When you’re stuffed with turkey this week, I highly recommend a viewing of the film in celebration of the holiday.

Trespass (2011), Dir. Joel Shumacher

This week the Film School website tackles a film that is a bit of a conundrum. Trespass is a psychological thriller directed by Joel Schumacher and starring Nicolas Cage and Nicole Kidman. With a veteran director, heavy star power and a reported $35 million budget, all signs point to a successful venture. For some reason, however, the film received a very limited theatrical release last month and was released on DVD last week. I picked up a copy of Trespass this weekend, curious to find out just what exactly went wrong.

At first glance, the Millers have the perfect life. Kyle Miller (Cage) is a fast-talking trader who is currently brokering a large diamond deal. He and his family live in an affluent neighborhood with an exquisite home and all the protection money can buy. Inside the Miller fortress problems are easy to see as Kyle has no time for his wife Sarah (Kidman) or teenage daughter Avery. When thugs show up determined to steal the diamonds from Miller, he and his family must survive not only the intruders but also the truths and family betrayals that are revealed during the invasion.

There’s a lot happening with the script that ends up as clutter in the film – it plays out a bit like a made-for-TV Lifetime movie rather than a traditional Hollywood narrative. It is referenced several times that key antagonist Jonah (Cam Gigandet, Easy A and Pandorum) is on some sort of anti-psychotic medication, but it never fully explained. His mental instability comes into play during the film’s climax, so it would be much more powerful knowing his backstory. Schumacher heavily teases Sarah’s involvement in the plot to steal the diamonds, but an awkward sequence of flashbacks consisting mostly of stolen glances between Sarah and Jonah don’t do the potential plot twist justice. And of course, the best home security money can buy is no match for the street thugs, though I suppose if it were the film would end in the first fifteen minutes.

Schumacher uses two techniques that end up as distractions – an often-times frenetic point of view shot and slow dissolves to prior events that don’t reveal enough information to warrant a flashback. The point of view, or P.O.V. shot, can be used effectively to help the audience associate with a character’s situation, but it is very overdone in Trespass. There are many twists during the film, so I understand the need to not give too much information away, but many of the flashbacks reveal such little information they are completely unnecessary.

There’s just something missing from the whole film, though it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what that something is. Schumacher is no stranger to the psychological thriller genre, directing Phone Booth and Falling Down – yet the magic from those two films are missing here. Maybe it is because protagonist Kyle Miller is completely unlikeable. That could be what prompted Cage to walk off the set for a day, demanding to switch roles from Miller to one of the intruders (he returned when producers threatened to offer the role to another actor). Or perhaps this type of crime drama – Trespass being the cliché crew of thieves breaking in to terrorize the rich – is simply running its course. It practically deserves a genre category, with classics such as Panic Room and 1979’s When a Stranger Calls - not to be confused with the lesser 2006 remake.

Trespass is exactly what it should be – a straight to DVD film that lacks the punch to sustain a lengthy and successful theatrical run despite the Hollywood heavyweights involved in the project. There’s simply too much happening in too little space for the plot to work. When you factor in a lack of likeable protagonists and a confusing backstory, the film potentially trespasses on an hour and a half of your life that you might find yourself wanting back.

The Adjustment Bureau (2011), Dir. George Nolfi

City of Angels meets Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in this week's review of The Adjustment Bureau. The film is being dubbed a romantic thriller, and while it does tell a love story it ultimately theorizes the age-old issue of free will. Veteran screenwriter George Nolfi makes an impressive directorial debut thanks in part to an impressive performance by Matt Damon. This isn't the first time the duo has teamed up to make cinema magic – Nolfi was a co-screenplay writer on The Bourne Ultimatum. Now behind the camera, Nolfi brings the same chaotic energy from the Bourne series to The Adjustment Bureau.

Charismatic congressman David Norris (Damon) fills the void in his life with a busy life of politics, but a chance encounter with dancer Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt) turns everything he knows upside down. After repeat run-ins with Sellas, Norris is convinced it is fate, but a higher power has other plans. The Adjustment Bureau – an organization meant to keep things running according to plan - steps in to keep the two apart, declaring they have other plans for Norris. Despite the efforts of the Bureau, Norris finds Sellas after a search that lasts several years, determined to eschew the destiny that has been set for him and instead write his own future – one that includes the woman he loves.

The love story works thanks in part to tremendous chemistry between Damon and Blunt. It is a bit hokey at first, as the self-made Norris seems to mope for three long years while searching for someone he barely knows, something that comes off extremely out of character. Yet once the couple reunites, sparks fly. Nolfi wisely leaves out typical gratuitous sex scenes, opting instead for the subtleties of a long awaited lingering kiss – a moment so important it is warned by the Bureau that if they kiss, it all changes. Having first met my future wife in grade school and finally confessing my life-long crush to her eighteen years later on a very serendipitous night myself, I could relate to the love at first sight relationship shared by the couple in the film.

The architecture of the