There are very few directors who can boast that they not only revolutionized a film genre, but also created a unique visual style all their own. With "Pulp Fiction", Quentin Tarantino did just that, revolutionizing what it meant to make a crime saga, but also set a course for making films which would be ripped off countless times after that. With his second film he set the bar far too high for him ever to hurdle again--there simply will never be something as good as "Pulp Fiction" or even "Reservoir Dogs" that comes out of him--but I don't necessarily believe it's fair to him to do side by side comparisons of his work. What I can say after watching his latest film, "Django Unchained, is that there has been noticeable growth and maturity in his work which is something I commend him for.
In one of the most highly anticipated movies of the year, Tarantino sticks to his crime epics, but takes us to the Deep South, just before the Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression, if you prefer), where we meet a severe young slave named Django (the "D" is silent) who is purchased by a German bounty hunter in the guise of a dentist. On the hunt for the Brittle brothers, Dr. King Schultz employs Django, for he knows what the brothers look like, offering him his freedom in exchange for his help. From there the two partner up to find Django's wife, Broomhilda, who is owned by the evil Calvin Candie. Along the way they make their small fortunes killing bandits as they travel from plantation to plantation.
Just from their names it is obvious that Tarantino has decided to do away with realism, creating a sprawling picture full of heightened characters in a time and place that was almost a caricature in and of itself. But even through the extravagance of it all, I didn't feel the overwhelming sense of muchness that seemed to characterize his more recent films, like "Inglorious Basterds" and the "Kill Bill" films. It was a cleaner, more polished version of his later attempts, with a rather straight forward love and revenge plot filled with great performances.
Jamie Foxx plays Django, a man who quickly embraces his freedom, and with the fires of passion burning in his heart becomes an ultimate badass in bright blue tails. It is far more a love story than a retribution film, and Django wants his woman bad. Of course the violence and the revenge are far more entertaining and Tarantino delivers that too, in gleeful abundance.
There might be two Supporting Actor contenders from this film. Chrisoph Waltz, who was rocketed to stardom in "Basterds" as the insane Nazi, Hans Landa, gets far more screen time with his amusing Schultz character, a man disgusted by slavery, but someone who still feels an obligation towards his purchase. Some of the funniest moments are delivered Waltz, whose snappy and articulate character is the most progressive person in the film.
The other is Leonardo DiCaprio who is a fantastically sinister charmer; a smooth talking plantation owner with brown teeth. As Calvin Candie, his "Candieland" is home to a great many slaves and the location for last--and truly Tarantino-esque--showdown. DiCaprio gives the most energetic and exciting performance as the deranged biological racist who specializes in "Mandingo Fighting" (I will let you discover for yourself what that means). It seemed apparent to me that our colorful screenwriter had the most fun penning this character and DiCaprio definitely took full advantage of that.
More than any other of his movies, Tarantino was also making a political statement. I don't believe that he thinks slavery has ended, it has just changed its disguise, like Dr. Schultz. His depictions of slavery are horrific, at times almost unwatchable, though I'm sure were dramatized like everything else he's done. After all, Hitler didn't die by a machine gun to a face.
In the end, I feel like this was his darkest and most emotionally resonant film to date. It is fun and funny, but I felt like a lot of what he did was more formality to appease his audience. It was a still a zippy, genre-blending whirl, a spaghetti western for the modern age, but I don't believe its purpose was honest. I felt like I was seeing past that, and finding an artist with a little something more to say behind the camera tricks, and that was what made the film exhilarating to me. I expect he only has a few more good films left in him, so I would love to see more growth and maturity bring him, and myself, to new and exciting places of the same caliber as "Pulp Fiction", even if it's not as revolutionary as that piece.
3.5/4
Monday, December 31, 2012
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Seven Psychopaths (2012)
The art of storytelling is a precarious one which walks the fine line between the boring and the absurd. Its mastery is a skill highly praised and one in which relative newcomer Martin McDonagh seems to be honing in on. Not only has he made a weird, hilarious, and at times powerfully moving comedy, his film also details the intricacies of storytelling and how people perceive narratives. In no way is this movie of the same caliber as films like "8 1/2" or even "Barton Fink", but it is an extremely entertaining film with some terribly clever ideas.
Colin Farrell leads an exemplary cast playing Marty, a struggling screenwriter in the process of writing a new film called "Seven Psychopaths". As he gains new ideas for who his maniacs will be we meet the psychotics in his own life totaling--you guessed it--seven. As the characters begin to form, Marty is taken down the rabbit hole as his friends inadvertantly bring him into the world of organized crime when they steal a shih tzu from the craziest of all criminals.
Sam Rockwell ("The Green Mile", "Moon") plays Marty's best friend, Billy, who runs a dog stealing racket with a seasoned professional named Hans (Christopher Walken). The film clips along briskly for the first two acts when their theft releases the crazy from a man named Charlie (Woody Harrelson) who goes on a murdering spree trying to hunt them down.
Some critics might not like the film because some of the absurdities get to be a bit extreme. There are also fantastical elements thrown in because, as I said, this film is also about the art of storytelling. There are small vignettes throughout about a scorned Quaker, a Vietnamese priest with a hooker, and serial killer killing serial killers which are beautiful in their own right and layer what might have been a farce otherwise.
As I reflect on the movie, though, I am unsure as to what the messages of the story are. Surely it could not simply be about movie making. Marty's writer's block encompasses only a small portion of the movie and is used more as a framing device to introduce the characters of the actual plot which is about psychopaths. Knowing that Marty is the only real sane person in the movie means we don't have to take the other people seriously, so their problems that they have in their heads don't resonate as strongly.
Walken's character might be the one exception to this. He plays a recent widower whose spiritual journey leads him to dark places in his mind. In all of his pain, however, he is a good soul and a pacifist. Unlike Rockwell, Farrell and Harrelson, Walken's character is subdued and only really ever funny because the lines he says are funny. He gives the soul to the film, if Rockwell and Farrell provide the heart.
The cast is tremendous. Rockwell is such an undervalued actor and although he is usually good at playing manic men, there are subtleties here that speak volumes of his potential. Farrell, who also starred in McDonagh's first and only other movie, the fantastic "In Bruges", is yet again another great vehicle for the director's vision. Harrelson has been growing on me as an actor. Here again he does a fine job in a role that was probably very easy for him to do.
I am a very big fan of McDonagh's, I've decided. He has made two very distinctive and unusual films, with great characters and sharp writing. His eye for small absurdities is great, and if he can make me enjoy films about gangsters then he must be doing something right. I hope he doesn't sell out his visions in the future, because he is making comedies for an intellectual audience which aren't solely about dry wit. It is hugely entertaining.
3.5/4
Colin Farrell leads an exemplary cast playing Marty, a struggling screenwriter in the process of writing a new film called "Seven Psychopaths". As he gains new ideas for who his maniacs will be we meet the psychotics in his own life totaling--you guessed it--seven. As the characters begin to form, Marty is taken down the rabbit hole as his friends inadvertantly bring him into the world of organized crime when they steal a shih tzu from the craziest of all criminals.
Sam Rockwell ("The Green Mile", "Moon") plays Marty's best friend, Billy, who runs a dog stealing racket with a seasoned professional named Hans (Christopher Walken). The film clips along briskly for the first two acts when their theft releases the crazy from a man named Charlie (Woody Harrelson) who goes on a murdering spree trying to hunt them down.
Some critics might not like the film because some of the absurdities get to be a bit extreme. There are also fantastical elements thrown in because, as I said, this film is also about the art of storytelling. There are small vignettes throughout about a scorned Quaker, a Vietnamese priest with a hooker, and serial killer killing serial killers which are beautiful in their own right and layer what might have been a farce otherwise.
As I reflect on the movie, though, I am unsure as to what the messages of the story are. Surely it could not simply be about movie making. Marty's writer's block encompasses only a small portion of the movie and is used more as a framing device to introduce the characters of the actual plot which is about psychopaths. Knowing that Marty is the only real sane person in the movie means we don't have to take the other people seriously, so their problems that they have in their heads don't resonate as strongly.
Walken's character might be the one exception to this. He plays a recent widower whose spiritual journey leads him to dark places in his mind. In all of his pain, however, he is a good soul and a pacifist. Unlike Rockwell, Farrell and Harrelson, Walken's character is subdued and only really ever funny because the lines he says are funny. He gives the soul to the film, if Rockwell and Farrell provide the heart.
The cast is tremendous. Rockwell is such an undervalued actor and although he is usually good at playing manic men, there are subtleties here that speak volumes of his potential. Farrell, who also starred in McDonagh's first and only other movie, the fantastic "In Bruges", is yet again another great vehicle for the director's vision. Harrelson has been growing on me as an actor. Here again he does a fine job in a role that was probably very easy for him to do.
I am a very big fan of McDonagh's, I've decided. He has made two very distinctive and unusual films, with great characters and sharp writing. His eye for small absurdities is great, and if he can make me enjoy films about gangsters then he must be doing something right. I hope he doesn't sell out his visions in the future, because he is making comedies for an intellectual audience which aren't solely about dry wit. It is hugely entertaining.
3.5/4
Friday, December 28, 2012
Ted (2012)
"Ted" is a peculiar beast. This is the type of film that manages to encompass all of the humor that our generation of young men finds endearing--that is it is crude, mildly witty, affable and completely forgettable. "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane is the funny man for our boys who are glued to the television, smoking pot and eating Doritos. His film is pointless, drawn out and at times ludicrously stupid, yet it is endearing in its own right for as long as you can bear to watch it.
Mark Wahlberg stars as John Bennett, a loner as a child who made a wish on a shooting star that his stuffed teddy bear would come to life and keep him company. As narrator Patrick Stewart explains, "nothing is more powerful than a young boy's wish". Teddy (Ted, for short) miraculously comes to life and he and young John vow to be best friends forever.
Now 35 years old and in a serious relationship with a lovely girl named Lori (Mila Kunis), John and Ted are still best friends and John's life is going nowhere. We know from a million other films just like this that Lori will pose an ultimatum to John: it's Ted or her. John will try to be a better man and grow up, but he will be met with pitfalls along the way, lose his girl and his friend, and finally reclaim them both after proving himself in a great challenge for a great big happy ending. Ta da! You've just aced rom-com 101.
Of course all of this slightly deviates from the basic structure due to the fact that one member of this triangle is a stuffed bear who likes to get high and watch SpongeBob, or have sex at the grocery store he works at with coworkers on top of the produce. The bear jokes are funny for a while, but they grow stale about thirty minutes in. I realized that and then learned the horrible truth that the movie is just shy of two hours long.
MacFarlane (who co-wrote, directed and voices Ted) is a clever, clever man. There is no doubt about that. His encyclopedic knowledge of 80's and 90's pop culture has always done him great credit in the television world, and has made him a household name (or at least the 19-year-old's basement hovel name) in late night t.v. His shows are 23 minutes long, lack any sort of credible narrative structure, and are basically a series of one-liners strung together by filler dialogue. There is nothing wrong with that; it's easy, it's watchable, and if you get the references it can even be amusing.
It is not acceptable, however, to make a film with this same structure, especially if the film is two hours long. It honestly felt like I was watching six episodes of "Family Guy" back to back with a loose message about the difficulties of adulthood thrown in for good measure. Some of the characters even seemed to be taken directly out of his shows. I guess I should have expected that. After all, that is probably what the audience was hoping for in going to see a film with MacFarlane's name attached to it. But it became tedious, and because we know the entirety of the film in the first twenty minutes there was nothing to do but listen to a multitude of punchlines with little setup.
Wahlberg and Kunis are both funny and charming, though he is way too old to be playing the boyfriend of someone so disgustingly pretty (as he ages I've noticed him looking more Kevin Bacon-esque. Am I wrong?). And though it sounds stupid, the chemistry between the two live actors and Ted was believable. The movie also features some funny cameos from Norah Jones, Ryan Reynolds and Sam J. Jones, actor in the Flash Gordon show and John and Ted's idol.
This is an okay movie and a perfectly good watch if you're stoned at midnight with a few buddies. Other than that, don't waste your time. It's so long, especially with a throwaway subplot about a psychotic kidnapper which devolves into a boring and poorly shot car chase. My advice to you would be to save your money and just watch some of his cartoons on Netflix. My advice to MacFarlane would be to take some classes on script writing. If there is no growth in what he does then what's the point? I don't mean he needs to crank out "Citizen Kane" or something, but regurgitating the same stuff he has been doing for over a decade and expecting people to pay through the nose to see it doesn't sit well with me.
1.5/4
Mark Wahlberg stars as John Bennett, a loner as a child who made a wish on a shooting star that his stuffed teddy bear would come to life and keep him company. As narrator Patrick Stewart explains, "nothing is more powerful than a young boy's wish". Teddy (Ted, for short) miraculously comes to life and he and young John vow to be best friends forever.
Now 35 years old and in a serious relationship with a lovely girl named Lori (Mila Kunis), John and Ted are still best friends and John's life is going nowhere. We know from a million other films just like this that Lori will pose an ultimatum to John: it's Ted or her. John will try to be a better man and grow up, but he will be met with pitfalls along the way, lose his girl and his friend, and finally reclaim them both after proving himself in a great challenge for a great big happy ending. Ta da! You've just aced rom-com 101.
Of course all of this slightly deviates from the basic structure due to the fact that one member of this triangle is a stuffed bear who likes to get high and watch SpongeBob, or have sex at the grocery store he works at with coworkers on top of the produce. The bear jokes are funny for a while, but they grow stale about thirty minutes in. I realized that and then learned the horrible truth that the movie is just shy of two hours long.
MacFarlane (who co-wrote, directed and voices Ted) is a clever, clever man. There is no doubt about that. His encyclopedic knowledge of 80's and 90's pop culture has always done him great credit in the television world, and has made him a household name (or at least the 19-year-old's basement hovel name) in late night t.v. His shows are 23 minutes long, lack any sort of credible narrative structure, and are basically a series of one-liners strung together by filler dialogue. There is nothing wrong with that; it's easy, it's watchable, and if you get the references it can even be amusing.
It is not acceptable, however, to make a film with this same structure, especially if the film is two hours long. It honestly felt like I was watching six episodes of "Family Guy" back to back with a loose message about the difficulties of adulthood thrown in for good measure. Some of the characters even seemed to be taken directly out of his shows. I guess I should have expected that. After all, that is probably what the audience was hoping for in going to see a film with MacFarlane's name attached to it. But it became tedious, and because we know the entirety of the film in the first twenty minutes there was nothing to do but listen to a multitude of punchlines with little setup.
Wahlberg and Kunis are both funny and charming, though he is way too old to be playing the boyfriend of someone so disgustingly pretty (as he ages I've noticed him looking more Kevin Bacon-esque. Am I wrong?). And though it sounds stupid, the chemistry between the two live actors and Ted was believable. The movie also features some funny cameos from Norah Jones, Ryan Reynolds and Sam J. Jones, actor in the Flash Gordon show and John and Ted's idol.
This is an okay movie and a perfectly good watch if you're stoned at midnight with a few buddies. Other than that, don't waste your time. It's so long, especially with a throwaway subplot about a psychotic kidnapper which devolves into a boring and poorly shot car chase. My advice to you would be to save your money and just watch some of his cartoons on Netflix. My advice to MacFarlane would be to take some classes on script writing. If there is no growth in what he does then what's the point? I don't mean he needs to crank out "Citizen Kane" or something, but regurgitating the same stuff he has been doing for over a decade and expecting people to pay through the nose to see it doesn't sit well with me.
1.5/4
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Les Miserables (2012)
Directed by: Tom Hooper
Written by: William Nicholson, Alain Boublil, Claude-Michel Stromberg, Herbert Kretzmer
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter
Following his Oscar-winning triumph, "The King's Speech", Tom Hooper has decided to undertake the massive project of translating one of the most beloved stage productions of all time, "Les Miserables", on to the big screen. Assembling a cast of very skilled, A-list actors, Hooper has made one of the most highly anticipated films of the year, no doubt fronted by teenage choir girls and other pretentious "cultured" folk such as myself. The result is passable, not great, though it will undoubtedly be a huge audience success and will rake in the gold come awards time.
Prisoner 24601, Jean Valjean, a man condemned for stealing a loaf of bread in post-revolutionary France, dodges his parole and attempts to become a better man. Victor Hugo's epic story is about the trials of a man who faces God and spends his life repenting for his misdeeds, hoping to enter the gates of heaven. Hugh Jackman handles what I imagine was a hugely demanding role very well, with beautiful singing and a few moments of very fine acting. Particularly his moments of self-reflection towards the beginning when Valjean makes the decision to become an honest man left me impressed by his talents.
As Valjean assumes the name M. Madeleine and becomes the mayor of a small town, the whereabouts of the convict are hunted by the wolfish Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe). The cat and mouse chase between the two will be the framing device for the rest of the story. Locked inside of this skeleton are half a dozen subplots about love and loss, greed and humility, friendship and betrayal, all culminating in what should be, though frankly wasn't, the spectacular finale of a fight at the barricades between the French Army and the impoverished folk of the Paris slums.
Without giving too much away, Valjean's spiritual path becomes clear in the form of a young girl named Cosette (with her adult self played by Amanda Seyfried) whose mother, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), sacrificed her life in order to protect the child, though putting her in the hands of the evil and avaricious Thenardier's (Helena Bonham Carter and a stellar Sacha Baron Cohen). When Valjean learns that he was inadvertently responsible for Fantine's death, he takes on the role of mother and father to Cosette and it is her purity helps keep him on the path of righteousness and helps lead him to salvation.
This is a tremendous story to try and condense from the massive 1,100 page novel into a short three hours on stage, though Claude-Michel Schonberg and Alain Bublil made a masterpiece of the theatre out of it. Hooper's screen adaptation is very faithful to the musical, with only minor additions of dialogue, some additives from the book, and some new music including an original, though decidedly inferior, song called "Suddenly".
It is still a long movie, clocking in at nearly three hours, but for some reason I find that the film does not carry the same fluidity as the stage production, and it felt rushed. I should like very much to distance the two mediums, but as one is so obviously inspired by the other I find it difficult not to. The acting is great by almost all cast members, but Hooper's very involved, heavy handed direction made it almost impossible for me to become emotionally invested in the story.
Firstly, the whole production looked rather cartoonish. In trying to create a grand, sweeping piece of cinema, the sets, costumes and gratuitous use of CGI are meant to heighten the realism of the piece. But this story is not meant to be about heightened reality, it is meant for quite the opposite. Much of the production looked so artificial and outlandish that the characters oftentimes began to seem less like real people.
Second, I am not sure who hired Danny Cohen to handle cinematography, but that person ought to be fired--and Cohen as well, for that matter. When it became acceptable to shoot an entire film in close-up and medium-close shots was is unknown to me, but it made for a jarring, claustrophobic movie-watching experience.
Both of these things are mentioned because they detract from what this story is about. Hugo was writing in large part to present the plight of the miserable poor, the neglected and the downtrodden. The play carries such resonance because so much attention is placed on the situation of the masses who have nowhere to turn to except the rifle and the cobblestone. What Hooper has done in trying to create "spectacle" out of a narrative that is already spectacular effectively draws the audience's attention away from what the story should be about and focuses it on the individual, which defeats the whole point of the story. Jean Valjean is there to serve as a guide for the reader/theatre patron/audience member to keep morality and spirituality present for us as we examine the causes, the costs and the benefits of revolution. Turning the film into a character study--and a poor one at that--is counterproductive.
There are things that I enjoyed in this film. Jackman was great, as was Baron Cohen who is always invested in his character and so effortlessly funny. I really liked the casting of Eddie Redmayne as Marius, Cosette's lover, who made me love and care about the character for the first time. Anne Hathaway was the true standout of the film, though. I have never really cared about the character Fantine in the book or play, but even in her short time on screen Hathaway delivered an emotionally wrenching performance that is sure to get her a well deserved Oscar nod, and possibly even a win. She reminded me very much of Maria Falconetti in "The Passion of Joan of Arc", which anyone who knows their stuff can tell you that that is a tremendous compliment
These actors made up for two very disappointing performances. Samantha Barks as Eponine, the Thernadier's child and my favorite character, was dull and lifeless (also, her hair and makeup were always perfect, but that's neither here nor there). Crowe was absolutely miserable. Javert is a ruthless and immensely complex character who, through Crowe's portrayal, was stiff, flat and boring. If I don't fear Javert and I don't believe Valjean fears him then what's the point? His singing was terrible, and was all around a bad choice for the part.
I am conflicted about the music. Hooper did something very interesting which as an actor I am very fond of, but as a movie watcher I was less than impressed with. Instead of having the actors sing in a studio and dubbing their voices over afterwards, the actors were recorded singing as they acted, adding the music in behind them later. This deepened the actors' ability to give honest portrayals of their characters, but also took some of the power out of their delivery. One of the greatest assets to this musical is... well, its music. If some of the greatest soul-stirring music ever written for the stage doesn't engulf the audience then we are missing out on an integral aspect to what is a very brilliant show.
I give this film a mild recommendation almost solely for its acting and for the fact that its source material is outstanding. I have read the book and seen the show twice on the West End and it reaffirmed my joy of life and my love of my fellow man, all while making me weep like a little girl. Tom Hooper should have taken a step back and let the material breathe. When it is given a chance to work its magic it is wonderfully resonant. It should not have been a time for Hooper to stick his nose in where it wasn't needed, and the parts that he did decide to leave well enough alone were great, giving small tastes of what everyone hoped the whole film would be.
2.5/4
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
A Christmas Carol (1984)
In 1843 Charles Dickens penned what has now become the most recognized and probably the most retold Christmas story other than the nativity. As it is one of all my all-time favorite tales I have watched a great many versions that have been filmed for the silver screen or the t.v. screen, and consequently have developed a laundry list of what it is that I am looking for in "A Christmas Carol". Because there are so many versions it happens that imagination gets the better of of some filmmakers, but the best retellings are those that stay true to the original. Through all of my wanderings amongst the various depictions, the 1984 made-for-t.v. movie is far and away my favorite.
George C. Scott plays the grizzled humbug, Ebeneezer Scrooge, and delivers a performance that is not only powerful in its acting, but is also a performance that makes the character a multilayered person as well as one that is completely different in its interpretation than any other I have seen.
The story--if you are unfortunate enough not to have read or seen it--is thus: the miserly, bitter, hardened old Scrooge works at his accounting firm on Christmas Eve, seven years exactly following the death of his partner, Jacob Marley. Rebuffing at the "Merry Christmas"'s that come his way and sneering at those who would do good deeds, Scrooge shows us why he is universally disliked and feared. Upon returning to his house in the foggy night, the ghost of Marley appears, burdened by a ponderous chain forged in his greedy life, and warns Scrooge that he will be visited by three spirits who will guide him to being a better person. Marley's prophecy holds true, as the spirits of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come lead Scrooge through the follies of his life and show him the warmth to be found in the holiday season.
There are two main mistakes that most interpretations of the story almost inevitably fall into, both of which have to do with balancing acts:
The first focuses on the character of Scrooge specifically. In almost any version that you will watch there will always be two distinct Scrooges, the one we see at the beginning of the film and the one that remains after he is visited by the third spirit. The two people--I can refer to Ebeneezer by nothing other than two people in most interpretations--are so different and the shift in character development is so sudden that not only is it unbelievable, but it makes Scrooge's repentance seem false and self-serving, which it is meant to avoid.
The second is about the movie as a whole. Many a time, especially in a story like this when the main character starts so dark and so cruel, and the fact that it is a ghost story, people tend to forget that Dickens is probably the greatest English comic and that the story also has a lot of funny moments in it. Conversely, when the story is told for children, many elements of the supernatural are toned down as is Dickens's statement about working-class London which waters down much of the story's power. Most have a difficult time of navigating the subtle changes in mood when translating it to the screen.
Clive Donner avoids both of these pitfalls, especially in his direction of Scott, though I cannot give too much credit to him, considering what a monster of an actor Scott proved himself to be. The film paints a thoughtful and sinister tale of a man whose ambition drives aside the affection of his loved ones. It does not, however, forget the comedy, and Scott portrays Scrooge in a balanced and humorous way. It is understandable why people dislike him very much, but it also makes the resolution less jarring; his emotional arc does not seem false, but rather very fluid.
It boasts a very good cast of supporting actors to complete the picture including Edward Woodward as Ghost of Christmas Past, David Warner as Bob Cratchit, and Frank Finlay who gives the best portrayal of Jacob Marley there is. The casting of Fred and Tiny Tim was off, but their performances are dwarfed by the perfect powerhouse that is Scott.
The screenplay is very close to the story's dialogue and in some cases even betters it. Writer Roger O'Hirsen condensed and solidified the story to its purest and best form. This is a chilling adaptation and brilliant one. I look forward to the holidays each year so I may read Dickens's words and later see them translated visually in this version. It is very much what I think Dickens pictured when he wrote his little book, and that is a rarity and a treasure.
4/4
George C. Scott plays the grizzled humbug, Ebeneezer Scrooge, and delivers a performance that is not only powerful in its acting, but is also a performance that makes the character a multilayered person as well as one that is completely different in its interpretation than any other I have seen.
The story--if you are unfortunate enough not to have read or seen it--is thus: the miserly, bitter, hardened old Scrooge works at his accounting firm on Christmas Eve, seven years exactly following the death of his partner, Jacob Marley. Rebuffing at the "Merry Christmas"'s that come his way and sneering at those who would do good deeds, Scrooge shows us why he is universally disliked and feared. Upon returning to his house in the foggy night, the ghost of Marley appears, burdened by a ponderous chain forged in his greedy life, and warns Scrooge that he will be visited by three spirits who will guide him to being a better person. Marley's prophecy holds true, as the spirits of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come lead Scrooge through the follies of his life and show him the warmth to be found in the holiday season.
There are two main mistakes that most interpretations of the story almost inevitably fall into, both of which have to do with balancing acts:
The first focuses on the character of Scrooge specifically. In almost any version that you will watch there will always be two distinct Scrooges, the one we see at the beginning of the film and the one that remains after he is visited by the third spirit. The two people--I can refer to Ebeneezer by nothing other than two people in most interpretations--are so different and the shift in character development is so sudden that not only is it unbelievable, but it makes Scrooge's repentance seem false and self-serving, which it is meant to avoid.
The second is about the movie as a whole. Many a time, especially in a story like this when the main character starts so dark and so cruel, and the fact that it is a ghost story, people tend to forget that Dickens is probably the greatest English comic and that the story also has a lot of funny moments in it. Conversely, when the story is told for children, many elements of the supernatural are toned down as is Dickens's statement about working-class London which waters down much of the story's power. Most have a difficult time of navigating the subtle changes in mood when translating it to the screen.
Clive Donner avoids both of these pitfalls, especially in his direction of Scott, though I cannot give too much credit to him, considering what a monster of an actor Scott proved himself to be. The film paints a thoughtful and sinister tale of a man whose ambition drives aside the affection of his loved ones. It does not, however, forget the comedy, and Scott portrays Scrooge in a balanced and humorous way. It is understandable why people dislike him very much, but it also makes the resolution less jarring; his emotional arc does not seem false, but rather very fluid.
It boasts a very good cast of supporting actors to complete the picture including Edward Woodward as Ghost of Christmas Past, David Warner as Bob Cratchit, and Frank Finlay who gives the best portrayal of Jacob Marley there is. The casting of Fred and Tiny Tim was off, but their performances are dwarfed by the perfect powerhouse that is Scott.
The screenplay is very close to the story's dialogue and in some cases even betters it. Writer Roger O'Hirsen condensed and solidified the story to its purest and best form. This is a chilling adaptation and brilliant one. I look forward to the holidays each year so I may read Dickens's words and later see them translated visually in this version. It is very much what I think Dickens pictured when he wrote his little book, and that is a rarity and a treasure.
4/4
Sunday, December 23, 2012
The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)
It is a Christmas not soon forgotten when Jack Skellington, the Pumpkin King of Halloweentown, decides it is his responsibility to take over for Santa Claus for the year. Collaborators Tim Burton and director Henry Selick have created one of the most vividly imagined alternate worlds in cinema, and their story about a man longing to reinvent himself and spread the cheer of Christmas has made "The Nightmare Before Christmas" nothing short of an instant holiday classic.
In a town of cobblestones, steel and fog, twisted buildings and pumpkin patches, a jack-o-lantern sky and a barren forest, the tuxedoed skeleton man orchestrates plans for each year's Halloween with the help of the ghoulish inhabitants of his town. There is no denying that Jack is the most frightening of the creatures of the scariest holiday, more so than the vampires, witches, Mr. Hyde or the Boogeyman, but a lack of fulfillment has made Jack despondent.
Going out into the forest to soul search (do skeletons have a soul, I wonder?) with his ghost dog, Zero, he stumbles upon a strange grove with a circle of trees, each bearing a door which leads to the land of another holiday. Bewitched by the image of a Christmas tree, Jack is transported to Christmastown were he becomes so enchanted by what he sees it becomes impossible for him to resist bringing the joy and color back to his home town. With a near unanimous vote, the townsfolk decide it's their turn to make Christmas, leading to wickedly fun disaster.
Shot in beautiful stop-motion animation with fabulously designed models, this movie is an example of the amazing things that can be accomplished when a group of highly imaginative people with a lot of patience sit down and set their sights on making something new and inspired. The work that goes into a project like this is pain-staking and incredibly meticulous, and although there have certainly been claymation videos before--I'm thinking of Ray Harryhausen's monsters or even the Christmas films of the 1960s like "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer"--but I'm not so sure it was a respectable art form until this movie came along. The extraordinary level of visual creativity held its own for many years, and even when Burton and Selick worked on other, future projects, this was the bar in which they had to hurdle yet never have.
I like this film very much. I like it not only because I was always a dark child with a taste for the macabre and I think it's fantastic to see Christmas told through a twisted, gothic eye, but I also think the film has very beautiful messages. A story like this could easily have been told through the lens that Jack is a depressed loner and a misunderstood spirit, and it could have been left at that. But I think that Burton fashioned a story about a man who felt like his existence wasn't enough and decided to do something about it. I think it is no coincidence that the main character and the film are about reinvention and stretching the limits of what it takes to make a good picture. It isn't about standing idly by and doing what makes you money and brings you notoriety, but about challenging yourself and others to think in new and interesting ways. That is what art is about, and that is why this movie is so special to me.
More than that, it boasts terrific music from Danny Elfman and a cast of lovely characters with some great voice acting from Elfman, Catherine O'Hara, Chris Sarandon, Paul Reubens and William Hickey. But then I suppose a labor of love which was three long years in the making would leave plenty of time to get everything just so. The visual wonderment is stunning; their labors were well worth the result.
Some plot points don't make much sense, such as a rag doll's obsession with Jack and their subsequent romance, nor is the separation between the real and the holiday world made clear, but given the scope of what these people have done and what a beautiful marvel this is I couldn't really care less. When an artist does something with vision and with love it reads, and it reads loudly. The fact that this movie has such a huge cult following nearly twenty years after its original release is a testament to how well that love comes across. This is a terrific film and a must see for children of all ages.
4/4
In a town of cobblestones, steel and fog, twisted buildings and pumpkin patches, a jack-o-lantern sky and a barren forest, the tuxedoed skeleton man orchestrates plans for each year's Halloween with the help of the ghoulish inhabitants of his town. There is no denying that Jack is the most frightening of the creatures of the scariest holiday, more so than the vampires, witches, Mr. Hyde or the Boogeyman, but a lack of fulfillment has made Jack despondent.
Going out into the forest to soul search (do skeletons have a soul, I wonder?) with his ghost dog, Zero, he stumbles upon a strange grove with a circle of trees, each bearing a door which leads to the land of another holiday. Bewitched by the image of a Christmas tree, Jack is transported to Christmastown were he becomes so enchanted by what he sees it becomes impossible for him to resist bringing the joy and color back to his home town. With a near unanimous vote, the townsfolk decide it's their turn to make Christmas, leading to wickedly fun disaster.
Shot in beautiful stop-motion animation with fabulously designed models, this movie is an example of the amazing things that can be accomplished when a group of highly imaginative people with a lot of patience sit down and set their sights on making something new and inspired. The work that goes into a project like this is pain-staking and incredibly meticulous, and although there have certainly been claymation videos before--I'm thinking of Ray Harryhausen's monsters or even the Christmas films of the 1960s like "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer"--but I'm not so sure it was a respectable art form until this movie came along. The extraordinary level of visual creativity held its own for many years, and even when Burton and Selick worked on other, future projects, this was the bar in which they had to hurdle yet never have.
I like this film very much. I like it not only because I was always a dark child with a taste for the macabre and I think it's fantastic to see Christmas told through a twisted, gothic eye, but I also think the film has very beautiful messages. A story like this could easily have been told through the lens that Jack is a depressed loner and a misunderstood spirit, and it could have been left at that. But I think that Burton fashioned a story about a man who felt like his existence wasn't enough and decided to do something about it. I think it is no coincidence that the main character and the film are about reinvention and stretching the limits of what it takes to make a good picture. It isn't about standing idly by and doing what makes you money and brings you notoriety, but about challenging yourself and others to think in new and interesting ways. That is what art is about, and that is why this movie is so special to me.
More than that, it boasts terrific music from Danny Elfman and a cast of lovely characters with some great voice acting from Elfman, Catherine O'Hara, Chris Sarandon, Paul Reubens and William Hickey. But then I suppose a labor of love which was three long years in the making would leave plenty of time to get everything just so. The visual wonderment is stunning; their labors were well worth the result.
Some plot points don't make much sense, such as a rag doll's obsession with Jack and their subsequent romance, nor is the separation between the real and the holiday world made clear, but given the scope of what these people have done and what a beautiful marvel this is I couldn't really care less. When an artist does something with vision and with love it reads, and it reads loudly. The fact that this movie has such a huge cult following nearly twenty years after its original release is a testament to how well that love comes across. This is a terrific film and a must see for children of all ages.
4/4
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Argo (2012)
During his presidency in the mid-90s, Bill Clinton declassified a joint operation between the CIA and the Canadian government in 1980, which extracted six refugees from Tehran during the Iranian Hostage Crisis and the revolution in the country at large. Ben Affleck takes center stage as both lead actor and director of this spell-binding dramatization of one of the most perplexing and thoroughly imaginative CIA operations that I expect the public is aware of.
For a year and a half, some 50-odd hostages were taken from the US embassy in Iran in retaliation for the United States harboring the Shah, who the US government installed in the first place following a coup d'etat in the early-70s. In the confusion of the embassy being stormed and the files being destroyed by workers, six employees managed to escape and were secretly harbored by the Canadian ambassador for three months.
The CIA became immediately involved, but could think of no logical excuse to send in an undercover squad without inciting suspicion of a government completely overrun by anti-American revolutionaries. Affleck plays Tony Mendez, an agent whose job it is to extract people from dangerous situations, something, he tells us, that he is quite good at. Behind his scruff and his quiet intensity is a very clever, audaciously brave man who certainly understands the meaning of "thinking outside of the box".
Using "Battle for the Planet of the Apes" as his inspiration, Mendez seeks the help of movie makeup legend John Chambers (a terrific John Goodman) to help him create a fake sci-fi film to be shot in Iran. Managing to secure the funds from producer Lester Siegel (an Oscar-worthy Alan Arkin), the CIA authorizes that the three men create all of the elements that would go into making a cheesy, alien film--all of which is done knowing full well that the film will never be shot--just to get Mendez into the country and give the six refugees their new identities as film crew members.
It sounds ridiculous, and it is. I suppose truth is stranger than fiction sometimes, and this is certainly one of those cases. Do not let the comedy set-up influence your reasons for seeing the film, though. It is funny, almost surprising so, given the nature of the circumstances and the fact that it is apparently very true to actual events. I have a theory, however, that the humor is peppered in during the film to relieve some of the tension, otherwise it might simply be too unbearably taught.
This is a fantastically suspenseful film; I don't expect that I breathed involuntarily throughout the final thirty minutes of the movie, and judging by the collective sighs from the audience (on multiple occasions) I would say that I wasn't unusually invested in what was going on, and it was simply Affleck's firm grasp of pacing and his exceptional eye for detail that made it a very, very good film.
Certainly, Affleck directs the crap out of this movie. I think it was as good, if not better than his last work, "The Town", which I thought was an exceptional work. It is studded with a great cast, also including Bryan Cranston as a fellow CIA operative and Victor Garber as the Canadian ambassador, not to mention the actors playing the embassy employees who all do tremendous work in their smaller roles. Affleck got a group of people all too ready to go for the ride that he had ready for them, and they tackled the material with extreme force.
I found the beginning of the movie to be a bit shaky, and I'm not particularly convinced that there was any reason to cast himself in the lead role when he gave only an acceptable performance of a character which a million and a half budding actors could have played, but once the movie found its footing and the plot turned away from the Mendez character it worked its way to a fabulous finale. There were moments throughout that definitely show that Affleck is a rising star in the directing world, a man who has a lot of clever ideas and a considerable number of tricks up his sleeve. Expect to see his name come Oscar time--I anticipate it.
3.5/4
For a year and a half, some 50-odd hostages were taken from the US embassy in Iran in retaliation for the United States harboring the Shah, who the US government installed in the first place following a coup d'etat in the early-70s. In the confusion of the embassy being stormed and the files being destroyed by workers, six employees managed to escape and were secretly harbored by the Canadian ambassador for three months.
The CIA became immediately involved, but could think of no logical excuse to send in an undercover squad without inciting suspicion of a government completely overrun by anti-American revolutionaries. Affleck plays Tony Mendez, an agent whose job it is to extract people from dangerous situations, something, he tells us, that he is quite good at. Behind his scruff and his quiet intensity is a very clever, audaciously brave man who certainly understands the meaning of "thinking outside of the box".
Using "Battle for the Planet of the Apes" as his inspiration, Mendez seeks the help of movie makeup legend John Chambers (a terrific John Goodman) to help him create a fake sci-fi film to be shot in Iran. Managing to secure the funds from producer Lester Siegel (an Oscar-worthy Alan Arkin), the CIA authorizes that the three men create all of the elements that would go into making a cheesy, alien film--all of which is done knowing full well that the film will never be shot--just to get Mendez into the country and give the six refugees their new identities as film crew members.
It sounds ridiculous, and it is. I suppose truth is stranger than fiction sometimes, and this is certainly one of those cases. Do not let the comedy set-up influence your reasons for seeing the film, though. It is funny, almost surprising so, given the nature of the circumstances and the fact that it is apparently very true to actual events. I have a theory, however, that the humor is peppered in during the film to relieve some of the tension, otherwise it might simply be too unbearably taught.
This is a fantastically suspenseful film; I don't expect that I breathed involuntarily throughout the final thirty minutes of the movie, and judging by the collective sighs from the audience (on multiple occasions) I would say that I wasn't unusually invested in what was going on, and it was simply Affleck's firm grasp of pacing and his exceptional eye for detail that made it a very, very good film.
Certainly, Affleck directs the crap out of this movie. I think it was as good, if not better than his last work, "The Town", which I thought was an exceptional work. It is studded with a great cast, also including Bryan Cranston as a fellow CIA operative and Victor Garber as the Canadian ambassador, not to mention the actors playing the embassy employees who all do tremendous work in their smaller roles. Affleck got a group of people all too ready to go for the ride that he had ready for them, and they tackled the material with extreme force.
I found the beginning of the movie to be a bit shaky, and I'm not particularly convinced that there was any reason to cast himself in the lead role when he gave only an acceptable performance of a character which a million and a half budding actors could have played, but once the movie found its footing and the plot turned away from the Mendez character it worked its way to a fabulous finale. There were moments throughout that definitely show that Affleck is a rising star in the directing world, a man who has a lot of clever ideas and a considerable number of tricks up his sleeve. Expect to see his name come Oscar time--I anticipate it.
3.5/4
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Pocahontas (1995)
I haven't watched this film since I was child, but I have always kept it in my heart as one of my Disney favorites. It was such a disappointment to watch it again and see it with fresh, unjaded eyes and find it lackluster and uninspired. I suppose the fact that I remember it fondly means that its makers did their job well, but it is sad to see the fun drained out of Disney.
From the get-go the story is rife with historical inaccuracies about the settlement of Jamestown in 1607 by greedy Britons, thirsty for the gold that the Spanish found in earlier conquests. Headed by the evil--though not so terribly villainous Governor Ratcliffe--the members of the Virginia Co. head to the new world where they expect riches and adventure, fully anticipating skirmishes with local savages which one crew member, John Smith (voiced by Mel Gibson doing a perfect contemporary American accent), has fought in the past.
They arrive in Virginia, and sure enough are met with fear and hostility by a local Indian tribe. The chieftain's daughter, Pocahontas, does not greet them with suspicion, but rather falls in love with Smith, guided by her heart and the spirits of the earth or some such stereotypical Native American nonsense. When the natives and the encroachers prepare for inevitable war, it is up to the love that Pocahontas and Smith share to quell the violence and show the two peoples that cultural differences aren't something to fight against but rather embrace.
This is a rather large and honorable undertaking by the Disney team, trying to impart a respect of racial and cultural dissimilarities to children, especially in a brief 80 minutes, but they do so by reinforcing negative stereotypes and tackling the content in a haphazard and naive way. The English were not bloodthirsty and barbarous (at least at the onset), and Pocahontas's tribe ought not have been portrayed in that cliched form of children of the earth. Particularly with the latter case, I think it is wrong to try and supplant the myth of the "savage" with that of the "noble savage".
Both Pocahontas and Smith are handled in ways that make them stand apart from their respective groups. She looks far more Anglican and simply "copper-skinned", and less wild than other members of her tribe, and he is an dull Aryan beauty. Neither of them seem to have the accents they should and appear far more "American" than the others. It might have been a specific choice to show the similarities between them, but I think it damagingly places our post-modern Western culture on a very high pedestal.
It is a visually resplendent movie with some gorgeous artwork and moments of striking imagery. The songs by Broadway legend Stephen Schwartz and Alan Menken are nicely composed and lyrically interesting, if not the most memorable, and they certainly won't keep kids humming them (though I must admit "How loud are the drums of war" has been going through my head as I've been reading today's news). It is unfortunate that their talent were not put to better use. Schwartz also did the music for "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" which is one of my all-time favorite Disney pictures, but those that film carried far more emotional resonance than this simpler one, no doubt due its superior source material.
Much of the trouble comes from the fact that it feels like an incomplete movie. It is a direct descendant of "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Little Mermaid", but unlike those two achievements, the arc of the love story is glossed over using the tried and true "love at first sight" explanation and there is no development to it. It is simply there to diffuse the artificial conflict of the us v. them scenario. It is, in essence, a movie that is all buildup without the heart behind it to make the resolution mean something.
I can appreciate the messages of racial harmony as well as the trend growing in Disney of using the strong, independent female protagonist, but they left the inspiration for the animation instead of the story. What good is a children's film if it is all message and no joy, particularly if the content isn't told in a way that connects to the audience? I am glad that they had "Beauty and the Beast" as a predecessor, for that deals with love and hatred of the "other" in a subtler and more endearing way--if only it served as a better blueprint this go around.
2/4
From the get-go the story is rife with historical inaccuracies about the settlement of Jamestown in 1607 by greedy Britons, thirsty for the gold that the Spanish found in earlier conquests. Headed by the evil--though not so terribly villainous Governor Ratcliffe--the members of the Virginia Co. head to the new world where they expect riches and adventure, fully anticipating skirmishes with local savages which one crew member, John Smith (voiced by Mel Gibson doing a perfect contemporary American accent), has fought in the past.
They arrive in Virginia, and sure enough are met with fear and hostility by a local Indian tribe. The chieftain's daughter, Pocahontas, does not greet them with suspicion, but rather falls in love with Smith, guided by her heart and the spirits of the earth or some such stereotypical Native American nonsense. When the natives and the encroachers prepare for inevitable war, it is up to the love that Pocahontas and Smith share to quell the violence and show the two peoples that cultural differences aren't something to fight against but rather embrace.
This is a rather large and honorable undertaking by the Disney team, trying to impart a respect of racial and cultural dissimilarities to children, especially in a brief 80 minutes, but they do so by reinforcing negative stereotypes and tackling the content in a haphazard and naive way. The English were not bloodthirsty and barbarous (at least at the onset), and Pocahontas's tribe ought not have been portrayed in that cliched form of children of the earth. Particularly with the latter case, I think it is wrong to try and supplant the myth of the "savage" with that of the "noble savage".
Both Pocahontas and Smith are handled in ways that make them stand apart from their respective groups. She looks far more Anglican and simply "copper-skinned", and less wild than other members of her tribe, and he is an dull Aryan beauty. Neither of them seem to have the accents they should and appear far more "American" than the others. It might have been a specific choice to show the similarities between them, but I think it damagingly places our post-modern Western culture on a very high pedestal.
It is a visually resplendent movie with some gorgeous artwork and moments of striking imagery. The songs by Broadway legend Stephen Schwartz and Alan Menken are nicely composed and lyrically interesting, if not the most memorable, and they certainly won't keep kids humming them (though I must admit "How loud are the drums of war" has been going through my head as I've been reading today's news). It is unfortunate that their talent were not put to better use. Schwartz also did the music for "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" which is one of my all-time favorite Disney pictures, but those that film carried far more emotional resonance than this simpler one, no doubt due its superior source material.
Much of the trouble comes from the fact that it feels like an incomplete movie. It is a direct descendant of "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Little Mermaid", but unlike those two achievements, the arc of the love story is glossed over using the tried and true "love at first sight" explanation and there is no development to it. It is simply there to diffuse the artificial conflict of the us v. them scenario. It is, in essence, a movie that is all buildup without the heart behind it to make the resolution mean something.
I can appreciate the messages of racial harmony as well as the trend growing in Disney of using the strong, independent female protagonist, but they left the inspiration for the animation instead of the story. What good is a children's film if it is all message and no joy, particularly if the content isn't told in a way that connects to the audience? I am glad that they had "Beauty and the Beast" as a predecessor, for that deals with love and hatred of the "other" in a subtler and more endearing way--if only it served as a better blueprint this go around.
2/4
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Tokyo Story (1953)
Far too infrequently a film is made that captures the raw beauty of the interactions of common folk in their inconsequential lives. Without the glitz and glamour of FX, heightened dialogue and nonsensical stories, many films feel flat and even boring. Yasujiro Ozu, with passion and meticulous care, has created a masterpiece of heartbreaking power told with the simplest and most often used of tales: a love lost.
The plot is brief: in the twilight of their years, a couple heads from their small, traditional Japanese village to Tokyo to visit their children. Upon arrival, they find their grandchildren disrespectful, their sons not nearly the successes that they imagined and sense that their presence is seen as a burden on the family. In fact, the only person who seems to show them any care and affection is their daughter-in-law, who is of no blood relation and whose husband died eight years prior to the visit. The disrespect shown to their elders will haunt the family in the end, however, as Ozu's requiem to tradition and family unfolds.
Interactions and relationships become largely irrelevant after the first hour or so of the film, and yet, astonishingly, the power of the bond between the couple become stronger as the themes of the story begin to emerge and strengthen. It begins as a lamentation of traditions lost, of family values which have been sacrificed for the sake of money and success. It is also an observation of the alteration of a new Tokyo following WWII. The couple's village was untouched by the bombs, and apart from the death of one of their children they seem to have been largely unaffected. But going to the metropolis in the stages of a technological revolution they find that though their two cities are relatively near to each other, they might as well be worlds apart.
What the film evolves into, though, is something more accessible and far more moving. Ozu's movie becomes a reflective meditation on the trials of life, of mistakes made and the inevitability of death. It is somber and elegant, pessimistic and at times even despairing. It does not seek to reprimand its audience, however. It is a mildly didactic instrument that seeks to very honestly present a largely unimportant family spending a short amount of time together doing largely uninteresting things. The lessons to be learned from what I expect was meant to induce self-examination are truths which we should value, yet ones we forget.
It was startling to me to find how much the marriage of the mother and father meant to me. It was apparent early on that one of them would die; there was enough foreshadowing to expect this. But when it did finally happen I found myself terribly emotional. Never once does this couple kiss. Never once do they say "I love you," but in their slow, stately walks, in their exchanges of smiles and sideways glances we know that their love for one another has passed beyond the need to express their emotions so openly.
One of them dies, and there is grief from the children. Tears are shed, but they dry quickly and thoughts turn to more important things like clothing and business trips. But in the emotions tossed about, the surviving half of the couple expresses nothing but acceptance and reverence. Death has been acknowledged, but that is a part of life. The closing shots of a solitary figure in an empty room, swallowed up by the city are haunting.
This is one of the most wrenching, gorgeous films I have ever seen, profound in its simplicity, and a testament to the wonders of the filmmaker. It is a film I would recommend watching alone and in a time of calm. Take the time to reflect on your life and what relationships you share with your loved ones mean to you. I think this film can inspire good in people in they allow themselves to open their hearts to its messages.
4/4
The plot is brief: in the twilight of their years, a couple heads from their small, traditional Japanese village to Tokyo to visit their children. Upon arrival, they find their grandchildren disrespectful, their sons not nearly the successes that they imagined and sense that their presence is seen as a burden on the family. In fact, the only person who seems to show them any care and affection is their daughter-in-law, who is of no blood relation and whose husband died eight years prior to the visit. The disrespect shown to their elders will haunt the family in the end, however, as Ozu's requiem to tradition and family unfolds.
Interactions and relationships become largely irrelevant after the first hour or so of the film, and yet, astonishingly, the power of the bond between the couple become stronger as the themes of the story begin to emerge and strengthen. It begins as a lamentation of traditions lost, of family values which have been sacrificed for the sake of money and success. It is also an observation of the alteration of a new Tokyo following WWII. The couple's village was untouched by the bombs, and apart from the death of one of their children they seem to have been largely unaffected. But going to the metropolis in the stages of a technological revolution they find that though their two cities are relatively near to each other, they might as well be worlds apart.
What the film evolves into, though, is something more accessible and far more moving. Ozu's movie becomes a reflective meditation on the trials of life, of mistakes made and the inevitability of death. It is somber and elegant, pessimistic and at times even despairing. It does not seek to reprimand its audience, however. It is a mildly didactic instrument that seeks to very honestly present a largely unimportant family spending a short amount of time together doing largely uninteresting things. The lessons to be learned from what I expect was meant to induce self-examination are truths which we should value, yet ones we forget.
It was startling to me to find how much the marriage of the mother and father meant to me. It was apparent early on that one of them would die; there was enough foreshadowing to expect this. But when it did finally happen I found myself terribly emotional. Never once does this couple kiss. Never once do they say "I love you," but in their slow, stately walks, in their exchanges of smiles and sideways glances we know that their love for one another has passed beyond the need to express their emotions so openly.
One of them dies, and there is grief from the children. Tears are shed, but they dry quickly and thoughts turn to more important things like clothing and business trips. But in the emotions tossed about, the surviving half of the couple expresses nothing but acceptance and reverence. Death has been acknowledged, but that is a part of life. The closing shots of a solitary figure in an empty room, swallowed up by the city are haunting.
This is one of the most wrenching, gorgeous films I have ever seen, profound in its simplicity, and a testament to the wonders of the filmmaker. It is a film I would recommend watching alone and in a time of calm. Take the time to reflect on your life and what relationships you share with your loved ones mean to you. I think this film can inspire good in people in they allow themselves to open their hearts to its messages.
4/4
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Life of Pi (2012)
I redden to admit that I have not yet read Yann Martel's Life of Pi and now, having seen Ang Lee's film adaptation of the novel, I cannot wait to go pick up a copy. Many of my friends list this as one of their favorite films and were mortified when they discovered it was going to be put onto the big screen. After all, a book doesn't get the label of "unfilmable" without good reason. I was not terribly skeptical going into the theatre though. Not having read the book I had no idea why it would be deemed so, and my faith in Ang's storytelling abilities is firm. I know understand their trepidation, why people love the story and why they were afraid of its butchering. I would like to say, however, that my faith in Ang is there with good reason and is as true as ever.
A young Indian boy named Piscine (Pi, for short), gifted with the incredible ability to memorize the digits of the concept of pi, grew up in a fantastic zoo in the French region of Pondicherry, in a liberal household where Pi was able to explore his passions. Though he was raised Hindu, he found that his passions fell to God in his many different forms. The peaceful, thoughtful and learned boy became a Catholic and a Muslim while also worshiping the three million gods of the Hindu faith.
When his father decides to sell the family's zoo and move to Canada, they board an ill-fated steamship which sinks in a storm. Pi finds himself the sole survivor in a lifeboat, along with several of the animals being transported, including a wounded zebra, a hyena, an orangutan named Orange Juice and a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. "Life of Pi" is the story (the fable?) of a young man lost at sea, and his 227 day journey trapped with the animals, fighting for survival.
To talk much more about the narrative would be pointless, for the very nature of the story inhibits it from being articulated, though it is explained with a narrator, Pi's adult self. The book was considered unfilmable for the very reason that it is not meant to be discussed, I don't think. It was one of those rare experiences for me where I went into the cinema with many other people and had my own deeply personal conversation with the material. The film emoted to me and I interpreted what I saw in the way I saw most fitting. I was not unique in that way, but how I saw the film was absolutely individual.
The shortened version of the story is the one I have given, but so much more than that this is a story about a confused soul coming to terms with God. It is about a person who soul is stranded in an ocean of trials as much as his physical body. The plot is rambling, at times slow, often grand and majestic in its visionary scope, but never once is anything less than completely absorbing. When watching the film I felt I was less looking at a young Indian boy and a tiger in a boat, but rather myself, as I hope each audience member viewed it.
Ang's film reminded me very much of "Tree of Life" in the visual splendor of what it tried to convey. Ang did his best to translate what a person might feel when he thinks of God on earth, of what that entity's true power is. It is one of the most strikingly beautiful films that I can recall ever having seen, with the best usage of 3-D I know I have ever seen. It tops "Avatar" and "Hugo" for its relevance, and is nothing short of a masterpiece in the cinematographic sense. This movie has about a million and a half wow-moments and left me with my mouth agape through much of it.
I am not sure that this is the type of movie that I could see more than once. I know very well that it isn't something that I could ever watch with a friend, nor could it be something that I talked about afterwards in any other capacity but a technical one. My thoughts are my own regarding Pi and Richard Parker, as I hope you keep yours as well. But although I will not dissect it publicly at a deeper lever I will declare here and now that this is in the very, very close running for best picture of the year. If films like this came about more often it might restore my faith in the creative powers of the cinema.
4/4
A young Indian boy named Piscine (Pi, for short), gifted with the incredible ability to memorize the digits of the concept of pi, grew up in a fantastic zoo in the French region of Pondicherry, in a liberal household where Pi was able to explore his passions. Though he was raised Hindu, he found that his passions fell to God in his many different forms. The peaceful, thoughtful and learned boy became a Catholic and a Muslim while also worshiping the three million gods of the Hindu faith.
When his father decides to sell the family's zoo and move to Canada, they board an ill-fated steamship which sinks in a storm. Pi finds himself the sole survivor in a lifeboat, along with several of the animals being transported, including a wounded zebra, a hyena, an orangutan named Orange Juice and a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. "Life of Pi" is the story (the fable?) of a young man lost at sea, and his 227 day journey trapped with the animals, fighting for survival.
To talk much more about the narrative would be pointless, for the very nature of the story inhibits it from being articulated, though it is explained with a narrator, Pi's adult self. The book was considered unfilmable for the very reason that it is not meant to be discussed, I don't think. It was one of those rare experiences for me where I went into the cinema with many other people and had my own deeply personal conversation with the material. The film emoted to me and I interpreted what I saw in the way I saw most fitting. I was not unique in that way, but how I saw the film was absolutely individual.
The shortened version of the story is the one I have given, but so much more than that this is a story about a confused soul coming to terms with God. It is about a person who soul is stranded in an ocean of trials as much as his physical body. The plot is rambling, at times slow, often grand and majestic in its visionary scope, but never once is anything less than completely absorbing. When watching the film I felt I was less looking at a young Indian boy and a tiger in a boat, but rather myself, as I hope each audience member viewed it.
Ang's film reminded me very much of "Tree of Life" in the visual splendor of what it tried to convey. Ang did his best to translate what a person might feel when he thinks of God on earth, of what that entity's true power is. It is one of the most strikingly beautiful films that I can recall ever having seen, with the best usage of 3-D I know I have ever seen. It tops "Avatar" and "Hugo" for its relevance, and is nothing short of a masterpiece in the cinematographic sense. This movie has about a million and a half wow-moments and left me with my mouth agape through much of it.
I am not sure that this is the type of movie that I could see more than once. I know very well that it isn't something that I could ever watch with a friend, nor could it be something that I talked about afterwards in any other capacity but a technical one. My thoughts are my own regarding Pi and Richard Parker, as I hope you keep yours as well. But although I will not dissect it publicly at a deeper lever I will declare here and now that this is in the very, very close running for best picture of the year. If films like this came about more often it might restore my faith in the creative powers of the cinema.
4/4
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Lincoln (2012)
I find myself becoming tired of Stephen Spielberg's recent fascination with Americana. There is something to be said for a patriot and a man who cherishes the bravery and heroism of the dead, but blatant glorification of the nation and its people becomes tiresome. His presentation of one of America's most beloved president's struggle to end slavery is decidedly one-sided, and in a film about politics this becomes its biggest error.
In the final year of the Civil War, Congress debated on whether or not to alter the Constitution with the 13th Amendment, much to the--shall we say--displeasure of many members of the legislature. It is a foundational myth of our nation that Abraham Lincoln towered above his opponents, issued stirring rhetoric, and with a zeal that warms our smug souls Congress swept the passing of the amendment while the southern states had no say. "Lincoln" attempts to break through that illusion, posing the argument that it was passed and only narrowly with intense politicking and under-the-table deals. For this, I commend Spielberg's tenacity, and that of writer Tony Kushner (Tony Award-winner for the brilliant play "Angels in America").
Daniel Day-Lewis returns from a three break in acting to don the stovepipe hat of Mr. Lincoln, a man at a crossroad. His work is typically tremendous and far different than his usual characters. Drawing on historical accounts, his very grave portrayal of the man and myth speaks with a high, thin voice that could be broken like a bird's wing. He is gaunt, stooped and his eyes hold much wisdom. Day-Lewis's power comes from his control, never doing more than necessary and never out-acting his fellow actors. What he does give is a thoughtful, measured and at times beautifully passionate portrayal of someone willing to sacrifice everything and exert the full powers of an undefined executive office to do what he feels is right.
This is not a Civil War film, though much of the drama comes from the fact that the war has gone on for so long and peace is near. The passing of the amendment must come before peace, lest the Confederate states block the vote. Therein lied the rub for Mr. Lincoln. Should he have continued the bloodiest war in our nation's history, even for another month, putting the lives of young men--including his own son--in jeopardy, or fight to make sure that the emancipated slaves remained free forever? It is a question bloated with sub-arguments about morality and the nature of God which "Lincoln"'s rather liberal running time allows it to explore.
I do not believe, however, that two and a half hours was necessary and that extensive editing of Kushner's verbose, yet elegant script was called for. Out of the life of politics, the film spends much time examining Lincoln's relationship with his wife, Molly, played by an extremely annoying Sally Fields who overacted to the degree that she could easily have fit in a telanovela. She added nothing but an extra character and their relationship revealed little about Lincoln the man. Entirely irrelevant, too, was the addition of Lincoln's son (Tom Gordon-Levitt). Pruning needed to be done.
A larger body of supporting players float in and out of Lincoln's trial, influencing his decision, but more often being influenced themselves by the president's convictions. It is a terrific ensemble of stuffy, old, white male actors who suit the film beautifully. Notable are David Strathairn as Sec. of State Steward, and an especially fine Tommy Lee Jones as the radical right-winged (meaning liberal at the time) Thaddeus Stevens, who plays his character with fiery passion with just the tiniest little wink. I certainly hope he gets an Oscar nod this year.
Though the passion of the actors shines through, there is not the affection in this film that Spielberg is noted for. The movie itself talks of grand ideas and great men of vision, but there was none of the love or cinematic spectacle which has made him one of the great Hollywood directors. It felt to me as though the film rested on our devotion to the Republican ideals of equality and justice, and our grade-school affection towards our 16th president. Indeed, the film is geared so that we see bipartisan bickering of humanist men on one side, and cold, economically driven racists on the other, but that has little to do with Spielberg and was simply an easy tool to visually divide the argument for the audience.
The ending does not culminate where it should, with the signing of the amendment (if that was a spoiler I suggest you seek out a third-grader for history lessons), but at the death of the president, which I felt was a cop out, seeking to play on the audiences' heartstrings instead of allowing us to revel in the monumental task of what happened. Presenting Lincoln as a martyr, which it effectively did, was rather tactless.
I did enjoy this movie, but that is praise solely for the actors and Kushner. I think the Spielberg needs to stop and take a moment to reflect on his work and the messages that he wants to send out in his films. Though he is a great director who has made many films which I love dearly, this was a misguided attempt to say something very meaningful. He placed all of the work on other people, sat on the shoulders of political giants who shaped American history forever, pointed a camera and called it a day. If one plans on tackling the image of Honest Abe, one must be prepared to do things as monumental as his inspiration.
2.5/4
In the final year of the Civil War, Congress debated on whether or not to alter the Constitution with the 13th Amendment, much to the--shall we say--displeasure of many members of the legislature. It is a foundational myth of our nation that Abraham Lincoln towered above his opponents, issued stirring rhetoric, and with a zeal that warms our smug souls Congress swept the passing of the amendment while the southern states had no say. "Lincoln" attempts to break through that illusion, posing the argument that it was passed and only narrowly with intense politicking and under-the-table deals. For this, I commend Spielberg's tenacity, and that of writer Tony Kushner (Tony Award-winner for the brilliant play "Angels in America").
Daniel Day-Lewis returns from a three break in acting to don the stovepipe hat of Mr. Lincoln, a man at a crossroad. His work is typically tremendous and far different than his usual characters. Drawing on historical accounts, his very grave portrayal of the man and myth speaks with a high, thin voice that could be broken like a bird's wing. He is gaunt, stooped and his eyes hold much wisdom. Day-Lewis's power comes from his control, never doing more than necessary and never out-acting his fellow actors. What he does give is a thoughtful, measured and at times beautifully passionate portrayal of someone willing to sacrifice everything and exert the full powers of an undefined executive office to do what he feels is right.
This is not a Civil War film, though much of the drama comes from the fact that the war has gone on for so long and peace is near. The passing of the amendment must come before peace, lest the Confederate states block the vote. Therein lied the rub for Mr. Lincoln. Should he have continued the bloodiest war in our nation's history, even for another month, putting the lives of young men--including his own son--in jeopardy, or fight to make sure that the emancipated slaves remained free forever? It is a question bloated with sub-arguments about morality and the nature of God which "Lincoln"'s rather liberal running time allows it to explore.
I do not believe, however, that two and a half hours was necessary and that extensive editing of Kushner's verbose, yet elegant script was called for. Out of the life of politics, the film spends much time examining Lincoln's relationship with his wife, Molly, played by an extremely annoying Sally Fields who overacted to the degree that she could easily have fit in a telanovela. She added nothing but an extra character and their relationship revealed little about Lincoln the man. Entirely irrelevant, too, was the addition of Lincoln's son (Tom Gordon-Levitt). Pruning needed to be done.
A larger body of supporting players float in and out of Lincoln's trial, influencing his decision, but more often being influenced themselves by the president's convictions. It is a terrific ensemble of stuffy, old, white male actors who suit the film beautifully. Notable are David Strathairn as Sec. of State Steward, and an especially fine Tommy Lee Jones as the radical right-winged (meaning liberal at the time) Thaddeus Stevens, who plays his character with fiery passion with just the tiniest little wink. I certainly hope he gets an Oscar nod this year.
Though the passion of the actors shines through, there is not the affection in this film that Spielberg is noted for. The movie itself talks of grand ideas and great men of vision, but there was none of the love or cinematic spectacle which has made him one of the great Hollywood directors. It felt to me as though the film rested on our devotion to the Republican ideals of equality and justice, and our grade-school affection towards our 16th president. Indeed, the film is geared so that we see bipartisan bickering of humanist men on one side, and cold, economically driven racists on the other, but that has little to do with Spielberg and was simply an easy tool to visually divide the argument for the audience.
The ending does not culminate where it should, with the signing of the amendment (if that was a spoiler I suggest you seek out a third-grader for history lessons), but at the death of the president, which I felt was a cop out, seeking to play on the audiences' heartstrings instead of allowing us to revel in the monumental task of what happened. Presenting Lincoln as a martyr, which it effectively did, was rather tactless.
I did enjoy this movie, but that is praise solely for the actors and Kushner. I think the Spielberg needs to stop and take a moment to reflect on his work and the messages that he wants to send out in his films. Though he is a great director who has made many films which I love dearly, this was a misguided attempt to say something very meaningful. He placed all of the work on other people, sat on the shoulders of political giants who shaped American history forever, pointed a camera and called it a day. If one plans on tackling the image of Honest Abe, one must be prepared to do things as monumental as his inspiration.
2.5/4
Monday, December 3, 2012
Bernie (2011)
I would class this as a film that probably shouldn't have been made, but one in which I'm glad it was. It's a true story, but one that I don't find compelling enough to have been put on the silver screen. However, it is clever, a bit peculiar and well acted, and for a movie starring Jack Black it poses interesting and unexpected questions about class issues and the nature of God in Small Town, America.
Black stars as a mortician named Bernie Tiede who befriends and then murders an evil old widow, and then hides her corpse in an outdoor freezer for nine months. It sounds like the type of story that would inspire Joel and Ethan Coen, but writer/director Richard Linklater steers away from the dromedy that could have been, instead choosing to create a mock-documentary inspired examination of one very peculiar man.
Bernie Tiede is about the least likely murderer you have ever seen, which helps explain why he was able to keep the death of Marjorie Nugent (Shirley MacLaine) a secret for so long. He was one of the most well-liked men in the small town where he lived, going out of his way to help his community with his infectiously affable nature, his generosity and his genuine desire to see that his work be done with great care and respect. He walks with a slight waddle, is suspiciously deemed "light in the loafers"--what I would call limp-wristed--and just about the biggest push-over ever to apply blush onto the cheeks of a dead man. Black does some of his finest work as Bernie, funny as ever, but without even the slightest wink to the audience which makes this piece so special.
Most of the humor, however, comes from a vast ensemble which I think was perfectly cast. It took me quite some time to conclude that I wasn't actually watching a series of interviews spliced in with a loose drama by professional actors. The film is ho-hum hilarious as we get to enjoy backwater, Texan, Christian folk describe Bernie and the events that transpired with all of the colloquialisms that made me think of the Coen Brothers' "Fargo". The illusion is finally ruined when you see many of the townsfolk interact with actors like MacLaine and Black, but even still I tended to forget the fact.
It is hard to maintain the illusion when the actors begin to "act". This was true of a very one-dimensional MacLaine whose character made little sense, as an icy, possessive, almost cruel woman who abuses Bernie's good nature and turns him into something of a slave. The romance between them came from nowhere and was never justified. I suppose this lends itself to the ambiguity attempted, but it was unsatisfying for me. It is further true of Matthew McConaughey who plays the attorney Danny Buck, who succeeds in convicting Bernie for his crime. His acting was far too over the top when compared with others, even Black.
I said that I didn't believe this movie ought to have been made, and I said it for a number of reasons. There is very little that I found spectacular about this murder. There must be dozens of them like this that have occurred in recent memory, so what made this one so special? Well, Linklater guides his audience to the conclusion that something very interesting was going on with this man, Tiede. Either it was the fault of Marjorie that she was killed--that it was her horrible nature that drove him to temporary insanity--or Bernie was one of the most spectacular actors ever to commit an act like this, and that he did it for her considerable fortune. Indeed, it does push Bernie's love of acting on stage very strongly.
I think, though, that this film makes it clear that Linklater believed Tiede to be a victim, and therefore the end of the story and of his film becomes irrelevant. What would have made for great cinema would have been for him to have been found innocent. He was not, and therefore we simply watch a murderer go to jail as he should have been. The film interestingly notes that his case was the only one that local officials ever heard of where the trial had to be relocated because they couldn't find an impartial trial--the people of the town loved Bernie too much to be fair. That right there was the story, the spell that he cast over the community, but unfortunately the movie did not have the cinema ending that would have complimented such a great premise.
I'm aware it seems like a petty thing to say that reality did not finish the way that it should have in order to make for good entertainment. But then, knowing this, it might have been more prudent for Linklater to have written a drama more loosely inspired by the events as opposed to attempting to give an honest portrayal in an ultra-realistic way.
Still, it's a very funny film and Black does good work. I mostly appreciated that the comedy was left to the audience to find for themselves. I enjoy it when I am respected.
2.5/4
Black stars as a mortician named Bernie Tiede who befriends and then murders an evil old widow, and then hides her corpse in an outdoor freezer for nine months. It sounds like the type of story that would inspire Joel and Ethan Coen, but writer/director Richard Linklater steers away from the dromedy that could have been, instead choosing to create a mock-documentary inspired examination of one very peculiar man.
Bernie Tiede is about the least likely murderer you have ever seen, which helps explain why he was able to keep the death of Marjorie Nugent (Shirley MacLaine) a secret for so long. He was one of the most well-liked men in the small town where he lived, going out of his way to help his community with his infectiously affable nature, his generosity and his genuine desire to see that his work be done with great care and respect. He walks with a slight waddle, is suspiciously deemed "light in the loafers"--what I would call limp-wristed--and just about the biggest push-over ever to apply blush onto the cheeks of a dead man. Black does some of his finest work as Bernie, funny as ever, but without even the slightest wink to the audience which makes this piece so special.
Most of the humor, however, comes from a vast ensemble which I think was perfectly cast. It took me quite some time to conclude that I wasn't actually watching a series of interviews spliced in with a loose drama by professional actors. The film is ho-hum hilarious as we get to enjoy backwater, Texan, Christian folk describe Bernie and the events that transpired with all of the colloquialisms that made me think of the Coen Brothers' "Fargo". The illusion is finally ruined when you see many of the townsfolk interact with actors like MacLaine and Black, but even still I tended to forget the fact.
It is hard to maintain the illusion when the actors begin to "act". This was true of a very one-dimensional MacLaine whose character made little sense, as an icy, possessive, almost cruel woman who abuses Bernie's good nature and turns him into something of a slave. The romance between them came from nowhere and was never justified. I suppose this lends itself to the ambiguity attempted, but it was unsatisfying for me. It is further true of Matthew McConaughey who plays the attorney Danny Buck, who succeeds in convicting Bernie for his crime. His acting was far too over the top when compared with others, even Black.
I said that I didn't believe this movie ought to have been made, and I said it for a number of reasons. There is very little that I found spectacular about this murder. There must be dozens of them like this that have occurred in recent memory, so what made this one so special? Well, Linklater guides his audience to the conclusion that something very interesting was going on with this man, Tiede. Either it was the fault of Marjorie that she was killed--that it was her horrible nature that drove him to temporary insanity--or Bernie was one of the most spectacular actors ever to commit an act like this, and that he did it for her considerable fortune. Indeed, it does push Bernie's love of acting on stage very strongly.
I think, though, that this film makes it clear that Linklater believed Tiede to be a victim, and therefore the end of the story and of his film becomes irrelevant. What would have made for great cinema would have been for him to have been found innocent. He was not, and therefore we simply watch a murderer go to jail as he should have been. The film interestingly notes that his case was the only one that local officials ever heard of where the trial had to be relocated because they couldn't find an impartial trial--the people of the town loved Bernie too much to be fair. That right there was the story, the spell that he cast over the community, but unfortunately the movie did not have the cinema ending that would have complimented such a great premise.
I'm aware it seems like a petty thing to say that reality did not finish the way that it should have in order to make for good entertainment. But then, knowing this, it might have been more prudent for Linklater to have written a drama more loosely inspired by the events as opposed to attempting to give an honest portrayal in an ultra-realistic way.
Still, it's a very funny film and Black does good work. I mostly appreciated that the comedy was left to the audience to find for themselves. I enjoy it when I am respected.
2.5/4
Saturday, December 1, 2012
The Gathering Storm (2002)
Several years ago I read a very lovely biography of Winston Churchill called "The Last Lion" which sparked my immediate love of the great, wartime Prime Minister of England. It recounts his early life up until his political exile, those ten years before the onset of the Second World War. A part two would detail those years he spent as a conservative backbencher, disgraced and dismissed by his party over his views towards India and the Empire, and it is these two books that deeply influenced the creation of this great T.V. movie.
Albert Finney plays the great hero of old Britannia who claws himself up from laughing stock to foresighted genius as Germany begins secretly rearming. This is not an action film. For those who wish to see Churchill in action as the PM can watch the sequel (far less enjoyable, at least to me) starring Brendan Gleeson called "Into the Storm". This section of his life, however, is simply about dirty dealings and bathroom politics as Churchill, who believes it is his destiny to save his beloved England from destruction, fights tooth and nail with whatever talents he has in order to regain the power he lost after the Great War.
What is most enjoyable to me is that this film closely examines his personal life in his manor, Chartwell. Anyone who knows me well enough can tell you of my fondness of Mr. Churchill. My father regularly chides me because he wasn't able to see the Tower of London while visiting me abroad as I spent far too long in the Churchill War Museum examining letters between he and his wife, Clementine.
Aside from the major political actors like Baldwin, Desmond Morton (Jim Broadbent) and Ralph Wigram, the movie centers in on Churchill's personal life. Often, the scenes are structured around the trials of love that he combats with Clemmie (a very good Vanessa Redgrave), or his interactions with his staff. Many times we simply see him at home painting, dictating speeches, taking baths (always 97 degrees exactly) or building brick walls. As much as it is about him working to repair his name which was disgraced by his warmongering, failed excursions in WWI and his political flip-flopping, the movie is also about his ridiculous spending habits and what he does to keep his "black dog" of depression at bay.
Churchill was a terribly complex man: an amazing rhetorician, a workaholic, a snob, a bully, a romantic, an egotist, a military genius and the only man whom Hitler ever feared. Finney gives the best portrayal of the man that I have ever seen, blending the giddy schoolboy with the severe, doomsday politician. He is not exactly how I imagine Churchill to be, but I doubt there will be many who could ever capture him completely. That said, Finney is clever in avoiding the bull-heading, chain-smoking, alcoholic warmongering caricature trap that many before him have fallen into.
It is a very, very good production. The recreation of Britain in the interwar period is sublime, especially for what I imagine was an HBO or BBC production, and the thoroughness of the details of of Churchill's life, right down to the pet names he used, his work habits and the kind of cake he liked was really enjoyable for someone like me who knows more about him than I probably should.
It does pose some serious and great questions to the audience about the nature of war and what we ought to do to keep our nation safe, even at the sake of peace. Historians have long chided Baldwin and Chamberlain for their appeasement attitudes towards Germany, but there is a fantastic seen in the men's washroom where Baldwin (Derek Jacobi) confronts Churchill and explains his reasons for not stopping Hitler from creating his war machine.
I did not like, however, certain scenes in which the politics of the era had to be spelled out for the audience. That is alright in moderation, but considering its audience has had WWII shoved down its throats for decades I found them tedious and a bit condescending, but perhaps that is simply because I am an historian. I also disliked the way in which the film glorified the English people. It seemed to me that if the filmmaker was given the opportunity, if he was in the House of Commons, he would have listened to Churchill from the onset and that those who sided against him were purposefully ignorant to the information at hand about their Teutonic neighbors.
Those are rather small complaints, and were dwarfed by my love of Churchill and his great portrayal. Although I did not necessarily believe all of his actions or the relationship between he and Clemmie, I think that this is an outstanding production, set out to give dimension and different shades of gray to a man who has achieved an almost god-like status to the people of Britain. For that, I commend their spirit.
3.5/4
Albert Finney plays the great hero of old Britannia who claws himself up from laughing stock to foresighted genius as Germany begins secretly rearming. This is not an action film. For those who wish to see Churchill in action as the PM can watch the sequel (far less enjoyable, at least to me) starring Brendan Gleeson called "Into the Storm". This section of his life, however, is simply about dirty dealings and bathroom politics as Churchill, who believes it is his destiny to save his beloved England from destruction, fights tooth and nail with whatever talents he has in order to regain the power he lost after the Great War.
What is most enjoyable to me is that this film closely examines his personal life in his manor, Chartwell. Anyone who knows me well enough can tell you of my fondness of Mr. Churchill. My father regularly chides me because he wasn't able to see the Tower of London while visiting me abroad as I spent far too long in the Churchill War Museum examining letters between he and his wife, Clementine.
Aside from the major political actors like Baldwin, Desmond Morton (Jim Broadbent) and Ralph Wigram, the movie centers in on Churchill's personal life. Often, the scenes are structured around the trials of love that he combats with Clemmie (a very good Vanessa Redgrave), or his interactions with his staff. Many times we simply see him at home painting, dictating speeches, taking baths (always 97 degrees exactly) or building brick walls. As much as it is about him working to repair his name which was disgraced by his warmongering, failed excursions in WWI and his political flip-flopping, the movie is also about his ridiculous spending habits and what he does to keep his "black dog" of depression at bay.
Churchill was a terribly complex man: an amazing rhetorician, a workaholic, a snob, a bully, a romantic, an egotist, a military genius and the only man whom Hitler ever feared. Finney gives the best portrayal of the man that I have ever seen, blending the giddy schoolboy with the severe, doomsday politician. He is not exactly how I imagine Churchill to be, but I doubt there will be many who could ever capture him completely. That said, Finney is clever in avoiding the bull-heading, chain-smoking, alcoholic warmongering caricature trap that many before him have fallen into.
It is a very, very good production. The recreation of Britain in the interwar period is sublime, especially for what I imagine was an HBO or BBC production, and the thoroughness of the details of of Churchill's life, right down to the pet names he used, his work habits and the kind of cake he liked was really enjoyable for someone like me who knows more about him than I probably should.
It does pose some serious and great questions to the audience about the nature of war and what we ought to do to keep our nation safe, even at the sake of peace. Historians have long chided Baldwin and Chamberlain for their appeasement attitudes towards Germany, but there is a fantastic seen in the men's washroom where Baldwin (Derek Jacobi) confronts Churchill and explains his reasons for not stopping Hitler from creating his war machine.
I did not like, however, certain scenes in which the politics of the era had to be spelled out for the audience. That is alright in moderation, but considering its audience has had WWII shoved down its throats for decades I found them tedious and a bit condescending, but perhaps that is simply because I am an historian. I also disliked the way in which the film glorified the English people. It seemed to me that if the filmmaker was given the opportunity, if he was in the House of Commons, he would have listened to Churchill from the onset and that those who sided against him were purposefully ignorant to the information at hand about their Teutonic neighbors.
Those are rather small complaints, and were dwarfed by my love of Churchill and his great portrayal. Although I did not necessarily believe all of his actions or the relationship between he and Clemmie, I think that this is an outstanding production, set out to give dimension and different shades of gray to a man who has achieved an almost god-like status to the people of Britain. For that, I commend their spirit.
3.5/4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)