• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Read An Issue
  • About
  • Advertising Information
  • Where to Find the Reader
  • Subscribe to our Mailing List
  • Contact Us

Park Slope Reader

  • The Reader Interview
  • Eat Local
  • Dispatches From Babyville
  • Park Slope Life
  • Reader Profile
  • Slope Survey

cinema

READER CINEMA: Isle of Dogs

April 12, 2018 By Sarah Inocencio-Miller Filed Under: READER CINEMA Tagged With: cinema, dogs, japan, Japanese, Wes Anderson

Isle of Dogs

Dir. Wes Anderson

 

“Will you help him, the little pilot?”

“Why should I?”

“Because he’s a twelve year old boy. Dogs love those.”

With all the same wry humor and pleasantly symmetrical compositions characteristic of a Wes Anderson film, Isle of Dogs spins a tale of loyalty and love between a boy and man’s best friend. Anderson’s newest film features a familiar cast (among them Bill Murray, Edward Norton, and Frances McDormand) and marks the director’s second adventure in stop-motion animation after Fantastic Mr. Fox. 

Set twenty years in the future in Japan, Isle of Dogs follows the story of a young boy named Atari as he tries to find his lost pet on an island of exiled dogs. Due to a dog flu epidemic that has taken over the city of Megasaki, Mayor Kobayashi, a vehement anti-dog proponent, decrees that all dogs be sent to a “trash island” just off the coast, transported via creaky metal baskets. The dogs quickly form feral packs in search of food, where we meet a ragtag group of dogs made up of King (Bob Balaban), Duke (Jeff Goldblum), Rex (Edward Norton), Boss (Bill Murray), and their rough around the edges leader Chief (Bryan Cranston). After crash-landing on the island, Atari sets in motion a revolution to save all dogs on trash island and help reform the surly Chief in the process. 

As with all Wes Anderson films, there is a certain unattached quirkiness that lends itself to the script and makes for delightfully dry humor. The stop-motion animation lends itself to Anderson’s ability to create a beautiful shot but this time with a new color palette of more muted browns and reds. Anderson’s strongest choice in the film is probably his refusal to subtitle anything said in Japanese, relying on the audience’s ability to pick up on body language and tonality. So while all dogs can speak English, Atari speaks in only Japanese, and Western audiences rely heavily on context to glean meaning from what the young boy says. While a unique idea when approaching a setting outside of the United States it does make one wonder how the film is to be presented outside of the U.S. and if perhaps the film was crafted with too Western a lens. After all, the character of Tracy, a blonde foreign exchange student from Ohio and studying in Japan, speaks, even to her Japanese classmates, in English throughout the entire movie, save for a ten second interval where she speaks hurriedly in Japanese to her host mother. 

Although the film was an enjoyable and aesthetically pleasing experience overall, as an Asian American, I found myself sinking into my chair at the very idea of Tracy, a character who could have very easily been Japanese. While I understand the “rules” Wes Anderson seems to have created for this world in order for an English-speaking audience to understand the film, I wonder how the film translates, quite literally, to non-English-speaking countries. There is something so underhandedly infuriating as well when a movie about talking dogs insists on having the dogs characterized as love interests all be blonde or light-haired. 

Isle of Dogs’ greatest strength is in its sentiment and its biggest downfall is unfortunately in the way it seems to use Japan as a backdrop more than anything else.  

 

Filed Under: READER CINEMA Tagged With: cinema, dogs, japan, Japanese, Wes Anderson

READER CINEMA: A Wrinkle in Time

March 21, 2018 By Sarah Inocencio-Miller Filed Under: READER CINEMA Tagged With: A Wrinkle In Time, cinema, Oprah

A Wrinkle In Time, directed by Ava DuVernay (Selma, 13th) has been highly anticipated for months, not only because of the respected director attached to the project, but also because of a star-studded cast comprised of celebrities like Mindy Kaling, Reese Witherspoon, and, of course, Oprah Winfrey. Based on the book by Madeleine L’Engle, A Wrinkle In Time follows the story of Meg Murry (Storm Reid), an anxious girl mourning the disappearance of her scientist father (Chris Pine). One stormy night Meg is introduced to the mysterious and eccentric Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon) by her precocious little brother Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe). Mrs. Whatsit discloses that “tesseracts are real” before disappearing into the night. This revelation leads to an epic journey across universes to find Meg’s father, her self-confidence and ultimately fight a dark force threatening the cosmos.

The film is through and through a children’s movie. At times the script feels as though it’s sprinting forward towards the visually compelling sections, leaving the audience trying to anchor themselves in the establishing realities that had just rushed by. Within the first ten minutes of the film Reese Witherspoon appears to pepper some fantasy into the mix and her high energy, wide-eyed performance comes off as slightly corny. It’s as if she is trying to compete with the consistently solid energy Oprah holds throughout. Mindy Kaling deviates from her usual comedic characters, presenting herself as a magnanimously wise being, and does the best she can despite having to regurgitate quotations for three fourths of the movie. The stars and saviors of the film are the three children, Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin. While Storm Reid delivers a subtle performance of Meg, Deric McCabe offers a sometimes annoyingly genius parallel as Charles Wallace. Levi Miller as accompanying adventure friend Calvin is quite possibly the most consistent and believable performance of the entire journey (although within the realm of this film it’s never really understood what Calvin’s purpose is on this trip). He delivers lines like “I like your hair” to Meg with quiet tenderness and winning eyes that ground the film a little more to reality.

While the film approached platitudes like bullying and self-confidence, it was done with a rather soft hand. This film would be a wonderful way to start a conversation about respecting yourself and others with a child under the age of eleven but unfortunately for anyone older than that, these themes were touched upon too generally. The decision to make the Murry family biracial was a step forward in diversity casting but was, at the end of the day, brushed over so quickly that the effect was minimal.

All in all, A Wrinkle In Time is a colorful adventure with moments of joy and visual awe. For best results, leave all pre-conceived notions outside the theater and sit back to enjoy a film that appeals to child-like wonder.

Filed Under: READER CINEMA Tagged With: A Wrinkle In Time, cinema, Oprah

The New Picture Show: Nitehawk Cinema Comes to Park Slope

March 14, 2017 By Ryder Miller Filed Under: Community Tagged With: cinema, Pavillion, theater

The cinema, in its experiential glory can be a magical event. It provides a means to communicate in a rich contextual way with others. One should remember that the movies can be a communal experience. The release of a new film in some cases can be a real social and historical event, and it would be a shame to lose that in a world of Netflix and Amazon Prime.

Pavilion to be Renovated and Open again in 2017.

 

Current plans for the $10 million renovation will include a bar and restaurant inside, a balcony view of Prospect Park, and an elevator to the top floor.

[pullquote]

in 2017 park slope and the surrounding community will enjoy its own nitehawk cinema outpost.

[/pullquote]Battle won, the neighborhood will still have a movie theater with a wide variety of films showing on its seven screens later this year. It is a victory for the cinema which has faced dire times in recent times and a constantly changing entertainment landscape. It is also a victory for the neighborhood and movie fans for whom seeing films on the big screen are memorable and impressionable experiences. Going to the movies can still be enjoyed locally by Park Slope families.

The theater has come a long way since its beginnings as the Sanders and will reopen just short of its 90th birthday. Back in 1928 it had only one screen and showed only silent films. Some of the famous titles of that time, some still popular, included The General, Metropolis, and City Lights. The Pavilion Theater was even there for the historic ushering in of “the Talkies” where audiences could experience sync sound for the first time.

Despite its historical significance, the Pavilion had obviously become run down throughout the decades. There was vandalism and dwindling maintenance given to spills, litter, and wear and tear. Occasionally the seats were damaged. The theaters did not always have lights, and it was unpredictable whether there would be coming attractions or not. Faithful regulars, though, appreciated occasional bargains and the added convenience of not taking a train out of the neighborhood to watch a new movie.

Nitehawk founder and owner Matthew Viragh was happy to step in and expand his Williamsburg success to Park Slope and said the timing was right to enter into a long-term lease with the new owners of the building. Renovations have been contracted to Brooklyn-based Think Architecture, who plans on preserving the iconic, historic exterior while adding some much-needed updates. The new theater’s appearance will still harken the grand old days of movie-going, but with the renovation underway it should also have the new movie technology modern patrons expect.

The new Nitehawk will offer a dine-in experience and also serve alcohol, just like the Williamsburg location, as the theater successfully led the push to overturn a liquor ban in theaters and became the first dine-in theater to open in New York State in 2011.

“The size of the venue will also allow for quality hollywood blockbuster first-run films as well as independent films. As always, we’ll be very judicious in what we choose,” said Viragh.

The big question is whether Nitehawk will be able to fill enough of its new 650-seat venue despite the current downward trend of ticket sales nationwide. At the now-closed Pavilion one could catch a matinee for $9 compared to the $15 one has to pay in the afternoon in Manhattan. Other Brooklyn theaters — like the Kent Theater on Coney Island Avenue — also offer bargain shows and bargain days and could serve as alternatives for the Pavillion’s former following.

Afterall, to its faithful regulars, the Pavilion was a boon even if the experience at the theater could be described as a little “divey”. Although it was a little nerve racking to watch an action adventure film with only a few other people — the emptiness of the theater making one feel isolated — some of the new chairs could be very relaxing. Personal experiences there have even been described as “peculiar, but magnificent.”

Strange to say, but the last days of the Pavilion might be missed, especially by the low-budget crowd. A fancy new theater might be safer and neater, but not everybody will be able to afford it. Given the theater’s history and location, there is likely to be some pushback from families who must shell out a fair bit of cash now for the new 3D and IMAX action features. Still, while taking someone to see a film there definitely won’t be “five bucking it” for the night — but it won’t be a terribly expensive date either, considering pricier date-night options in the city. The new addition of alcohol might also be a draw for some.

In the end, The Flick by Annie Baker could be an entertaining commentary on the fate of the Pavillion, as it tells the daily drama of the staff in a fictional Massachusetts movie theater challenged by the new entertainment landscape. The staff in the play was up to some of the same things that people see in the films on the big screen. (Incidentally, the play won The Pulitzer for Drama in 2014 with its characters dealing with the change to digital filmmaking.)

An upscale new theater in the neighborhood might provide a more sanitized and safer experience, but, will it attract new people? With inflation and the cheap availability of streaming services, some might not opt to make it to the big screen anymore. In 1928 a film cost only a quarter which adjusted for inflation was about $4, no less.

Film is something that is shared among people; it is something that people can have in common. It is also a way to see things through the eyes of others. Those who don’t take in a story from the “eyes” or in the “shoes” of others can miss the opportunity to expand their awareness and understanding of the world they live in. One will soon be able to do this again first without leaving the neighborhood.

 

www.nitehawkcinema.com

Filed Under: Community Tagged With: cinema, Pavillion, theater

Primary Sidebar

The Spring 2025 Issue is now available

The Reader Community

READER CONTRIBUTORS

Copyright © 2025 · Park Slope Reader