I do believe this is my first review of a documentary so I am not entirely sure where to start...
What makes you beautiful? I'm sure I don't know, but I know beauty when I see it--or rather I know ugly when it glares me in the face. But is a particular nose "good"? or eyebrows? or feet? They are natural and often not naturally changing. But what about hair? We gain it and lose it. It often changes color on its own, and people born with curls may find themselves suddenly without. What it exceptional about hair is its versatility--its willingness to change--allowing us to alter a part of ourselves at will which we might be able to do a few times with a nose for instance, but at great financial cost and a lot of pain. Chris Rock has decided to explore the world of black hair to find out what it is that black people, particularly women, find to be beautiful, and the lengths that they will go (and they are considerable) to achieve "good hair".
The arc of the film that ties it all together is a national hair convention in Atlanta where people from around the country come to sell their products and strut their stuff. The three day convention ends in a hair battle spectacular, and it is the four competitors that we meet to find their secret weapons and their method for cutting what could certainly be a daunting area of the barbering world.
But that is really of little interest to me, as I am sure is much the same for most viewers. What is absolutely fascinating, though, is Rock's journey not only across the nation, but across the globe as he learns about relaxers, perms, weaves, wigs, and all of the absurdities and money that go into African-American hairstyles. It is a $9 billion dollar industry centered in this minority group trying desperately to have white people's hair. It is a culture that I had no knowledge of, nor could I possibly have known about considering I am not black nor do I have any black friends, and this was a glimpse into a mysterious world that I didn't even know existed.
Rock, who is actually much funnier than I think I give him credit for, talks to a great many black celebrities and important figures including Al Sharpton, Ice-T, Maya Angelou, Eve and Raven Symone, as well as to people who run barbershops in Brooklyn, Harlem, Atlanta and practically everywhere else where a black community is particularly strong. Women, and not just the celebrities, will literally spend thousands of dollars and travel across the nation for their hair every year, even when they can't put food on the table. It speaks so loudly of a culture that is lost and yet still so vibrantly original that it is entirely perplexing.
This is interesting, very funny, confusing, and eye-opening. Anybody can watch this film, feel a little bit closer to a community to which they are very alien, and thoroughly enjoy themselves at the same time. I highly recommend this to anyone who has a little bit of time and wants something novel to look at.
3.5/4
Friday, December 30, 2011
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
If you read reviews of this film then undoubtedly you will notice similarities between the reviews for this movie and those of Let the Right One In and Let Me In. Pretentious movie critics assume that since something is in Swedish--something that is in anything other than English--must automatically be better than its English counterparts, as if Europeans are infallible filmmakers and their work untouchable. I have not seen Let Me In so I could not possibly compare, nor have I seen the original, Swedish version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. In fact I have not read the book. So if you grow weary of being condescended to by the pomposity of these great critics for not having read the book or made the effort to go to an art-house cinema to see a foreign film then you are reading the right review. It is not that I am lazy or couldn't be bothered to look into any of this film's predecessors, it is simply that this was in the theatre down the street. So, ladies and gentleman, this post will be self-contained and without further reference to where it comes from, thereby making it without bias (save one: I historically dislike David Fincher films, but we can certainly discuss that).
Apparently one of three films to compliment one of three books which I expect to be more or less along the same line of content as this film was, this first part is a murder mystery that leads us to an island so backwards and so twisted it is not to be believed. Daniel Craig plays Mikael Blomvist, a disgraced journalist suffering from the failure of a libel lawsuit case. He is contacted by a mysterious, rich old gentleman who offers him the chance to escape the miserable world in which he is existing to write the man's memoirs. That is the official proposition. What he is actually after it for Mikael to possibly unearth new information about a daughter or niece or something of his who disappeared some forty years earlier.
It is quite an interesting mystery, filled with Nazis and incest and all sorts of things that intrigue me, but after forty years who really gives a damn? The film is two hours and forty minutes, and a considerable amount of time was spent focusing on this very old puzzle without giving it any relevance to the present. It took a good long while before I actually cared about the story that I should have been.
My interest in the plot was challenged even more so by a secondary character who was far more interesting in and of herself than the entire story--which, again, was filled with Nazis and incest, so she had to be pretty interesting. Lizbeth Salander is a young, striking and very troubled woman with an ugly past and an even uglier demeanor. An investigator originally sent to find incriminating information about Mikael during his lawsuit (which she did quite successfully), she becomes his research assistant, aiding him in tracking down, not only the missing girl, but also her killer.
She, as a character, was so interesting and played so well by Rooney Mara, that I became annoyed every time the story jumped from her life back to our Agatha Christie story. This girl is so complicated and so surprising that a film devoted entirely to her life of computer hacking, lesbian encounters, counseling sessions and chess games with her ward would have made a far more interesting and more rewarding movie-going experience. Not that I disliked this film, but a character study would have been much better. Not the writer's fault, I know.
This is a solid film. Nothing new, but it is directed well--if a little too blandly given the content, and acted very well. Mara, with her serpentine looks which say so much without her even twitching a muscle, will hopefully earn an Oscar nod in a couple of weeks. Again, Fincher teams up with some guy named Trent Reznor from some band called Nine Inch Nails (look for his nod to one of the greatest bands of all time in Lizbeth's friend's apartment) to create a score again worthy of an Academy Award. Reznor I guess has a knack for this sort of thing. His music was as direct and sharp as the art direction ought to have been.
The movie will hopefully appeal to a wide audience including those like myself who are virgins to the "Dragon Tattoo" series. I enjoyed myself and the rest of the audience seemed to as well.
3/4
*Note: How this film managed to avoid an NC-17 rating in entirely beyond me; I have seen it given out for far less than what this film presented. There are two rape scenes in this film which are violent, graphic and extremely uncomfortable to watch. Fincher does not handle the material lightly. Please be aware when going in that this goes far beyond traditional sex and violence, and will certainly disturb a great many audience members.
Apparently one of three films to compliment one of three books which I expect to be more or less along the same line of content as this film was, this first part is a murder mystery that leads us to an island so backwards and so twisted it is not to be believed. Daniel Craig plays Mikael Blomvist, a disgraced journalist suffering from the failure of a libel lawsuit case. He is contacted by a mysterious, rich old gentleman who offers him the chance to escape the miserable world in which he is existing to write the man's memoirs. That is the official proposition. What he is actually after it for Mikael to possibly unearth new information about a daughter or niece or something of his who disappeared some forty years earlier.
It is quite an interesting mystery, filled with Nazis and incest and all sorts of things that intrigue me, but after forty years who really gives a damn? The film is two hours and forty minutes, and a considerable amount of time was spent focusing on this very old puzzle without giving it any relevance to the present. It took a good long while before I actually cared about the story that I should have been.
My interest in the plot was challenged even more so by a secondary character who was far more interesting in and of herself than the entire story--which, again, was filled with Nazis and incest, so she had to be pretty interesting. Lizbeth Salander is a young, striking and very troubled woman with an ugly past and an even uglier demeanor. An investigator originally sent to find incriminating information about Mikael during his lawsuit (which she did quite successfully), she becomes his research assistant, aiding him in tracking down, not only the missing girl, but also her killer.
She, as a character, was so interesting and played so well by Rooney Mara, that I became annoyed every time the story jumped from her life back to our Agatha Christie story. This girl is so complicated and so surprising that a film devoted entirely to her life of computer hacking, lesbian encounters, counseling sessions and chess games with her ward would have made a far more interesting and more rewarding movie-going experience. Not that I disliked this film, but a character study would have been much better. Not the writer's fault, I know.
This is a solid film. Nothing new, but it is directed well--if a little too blandly given the content, and acted very well. Mara, with her serpentine looks which say so much without her even twitching a muscle, will hopefully earn an Oscar nod in a couple of weeks. Again, Fincher teams up with some guy named Trent Reznor from some band called Nine Inch Nails (look for his nod to one of the greatest bands of all time in Lizbeth's friend's apartment) to create a score again worthy of an Academy Award. Reznor I guess has a knack for this sort of thing. His music was as direct and sharp as the art direction ought to have been.
The movie will hopefully appeal to a wide audience including those like myself who are virgins to the "Dragon Tattoo" series. I enjoyed myself and the rest of the audience seemed to as well.
3/4
*Note: How this film managed to avoid an NC-17 rating in entirely beyond me; I have seen it given out for far less than what this film presented. There are two rape scenes in this film which are violent, graphic and extremely uncomfortable to watch. Fincher does not handle the material lightly. Please be aware when going in that this goes far beyond traditional sex and violence, and will certainly disturb a great many audience members.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Hugo (2011)
Finally a film whose praises I want to shout from the rooftops. In an old Paris full of copper, rust, wheels and cogs, a young orphan, Hugo Cabret, searches for his past and instead unearths a mystery that he couldn't possibly have guessed. It sounds simply enough, a lovely children's adventure film shot in wondrous 3D, but instead becomes a poem about the wonders of the cinema and director Martin Scorsese's tribute to those who inspired him most.
Living in the rafters of a train station, Hugo (Asa Butterfield) silently puts together a small automaton--oddly (or perhaps intentionally, but I wouldn't know why) similar to the robot in Fritz Lang's Metropolis--whose purpose it to write. Hugo believes that if he can get it to work the little robot will scrawl a message from his dead father. In order to reconstruct the delicate machine, this young but gifted son of a watchmaker steals parts of toys from a grizzly old tinkerer (Ben Kingsly) in the station.
One missing piece mysteriously brings him to the attention of the toy maker's granddaughter, and it is their connection that brings them closer to his past and, unsurprisingly, to his future. For what the automaton ends up putting on paper is far more puzzling and exciting than a note from his dad, and ends up bringing the two children into a world in which they have never known.
That is the exciting stuff for the children and those who stick to films like Transformers and Harry Potter. Where Scorsese takes us next is a journey into a realm where I dwell, and makes me experience it anew. For those with only the most basic knowledge of the film world the magic of Hugo will pass unnoticed and that is terrible as I think I can safely say that this is a small masterpiece of cinema.
I should like not to reveal much more than this, as the film is a mystery, but I almost can't contain myself. References, clips and homages from the Lumier brothers, Georges Milies, Harold Lloyd, Chaplin, Keaton, even La Bete Humaine littler this film, and relish in the inspiration that they have given to so many aspiring film makers. Despite the great acting, directing, special effects, music, writing and every other aspect that one could possibly smush into a film, this is Scorsese's way of saying thank you, and is a plea to the public and to historians to respect the craft of film making and to ensure its preservation.
This is a film that once the credits began rolling I immediately wanted to watch again. There is nothing forced or routine about it; it is exactly what it was meant to be and what it needs to be. There is something in here for everyone, and my greatest hope is that it will inspire curiosity in young people enough for them to go out and find something new in the world of cinema. It is quite clear from this film that the greatest travesty that one could suffer would be to not know film at all.
4/4
Living in the rafters of a train station, Hugo (Asa Butterfield) silently puts together a small automaton--oddly (or perhaps intentionally, but I wouldn't know why) similar to the robot in Fritz Lang's Metropolis--whose purpose it to write. Hugo believes that if he can get it to work the little robot will scrawl a message from his dead father. In order to reconstruct the delicate machine, this young but gifted son of a watchmaker steals parts of toys from a grizzly old tinkerer (Ben Kingsly) in the station.
That is the exciting stuff for the children and those who stick to films like Transformers and Harry Potter. Where Scorsese takes us next is a journey into a realm where I dwell, and makes me experience it anew. For those with only the most basic knowledge of the film world the magic of Hugo will pass unnoticed and that is terrible as I think I can safely say that this is a small masterpiece of cinema.
I should like not to reveal much more than this, as the film is a mystery, but I almost can't contain myself. References, clips and homages from the Lumier brothers, Georges Milies, Harold Lloyd, Chaplin, Keaton, even La Bete Humaine littler this film, and relish in the inspiration that they have given to so many aspiring film makers. Despite the great acting, directing, special effects, music, writing and every other aspect that one could possibly smush into a film, this is Scorsese's way of saying thank you, and is a plea to the public and to historians to respect the craft of film making and to ensure its preservation.
This is a film that once the credits began rolling I immediately wanted to watch again. There is nothing forced or routine about it; it is exactly what it was meant to be and what it needs to be. There is something in here for everyone, and my greatest hope is that it will inspire curiosity in young people enough for them to go out and find something new in the world of cinema. It is quite clear from this film that the greatest travesty that one could suffer would be to not know film at all.
4/4
My Week With Marilyn (2011)
I went to the cinema with a friend of mine to watch Marilyn. He knows little about film and not a particularly large amount about Marilyn Monroe (even though he is gay. Challenging stereotypes, I suppose). Even still, two minutes into the film he was beaming. Such is the power of Marilyn/ Michelle Williams. The line between the two of them was completely erased in about ten seconds. What a talent to look into a camera and make men melt; to win the adoration of everyone around you simply with a smile. The film opens with a musical number, and it was spectacular. Everyone in the film's audience as well as in the theatre was enraptured. The power is undiminished.
Williams was uncannily good in her performance. We leave the film still not really knowing who Marilyn was, but I have to believe it was exactly like how she was portrayed here because I believe the performance in its entirety. Physicality wise she was spot on--her glowing eyes, the pucker of her lips, her "Marilyn" poses. But so much more than that the sex, the insecurity, the addictive personality, the flakiness, the drive was all there. The real Marilyn and the screen Marilyn were so convincing than a mostly uninspired movie was overwhelmed by her star power.
But about the plot...
Colin Clark, who would later become a moderately successful documentarian, recorded the week he spent with the greatest star in the world while working as the third assistant director in a Laurence Olivier picture. Starting from nothing, and with no qualifications excepting perhaps his beautiful upper lip and dazzling eyes, he managed to secure his job which was really nothing more than a lackey. But what a job for a 23 year old upstart! Perhaps it was natural charm or just really, really good looks that had Marilyn notice him, but in any case he also secured the job as best friend/surrogate husband. Then it ends. The end. Boring.
The plot was actually the dullest and most pointless thing ever. This Colin was an utterly useless character who had utterly useless interactions. There was a silly sub-plot romance between him a seamstress (Emma Watson), and just the generally uninteresting plot about him making it into the film. I understand completely that it was his journal entry and that this was a true story, but this was absolutely one of those types of films where creative licencing should have stepped in and simply taken the nature of Marilyn and constructed something interesting.
But as I said, Williams, who will absolutely get an Oscar nod, made the film sparkle, even when drugged up and drunk (which was often). So many questions were raised about her character which were never properly answered, and rightly so. How much fame is too much for some people? It was miserable to watch a woman from a broken home who jumped from man to man hate the life she led. People loved "Marilyn Monroe", but nobody loved the real her and she knew it.
Other than her the supporting cast was also top notch. Particular to note was Kenneth Branagh who was perfect and hilarious (and perfectly hilarious) doing his impersonation of Sir Laurence Olivier. He currently has my vote as best supporting actor of the year. I giggled all of the way through the film at the grandoiseness of his persona and scarily accurate way he embodied Olivier's performance style. There were also performances of Vivien Leigh, Arthur Miller, and Dame Sybil Thorndike, all wonderful.
This was an actor's movie offering us the tiniest glimpse of one of the most enigmatic personas of all time. I still don't feel like I know anything about her, and I also don't feel like I gained too much from this film, but the performances were good enough for me to give a hearty recommendation.
3/4
Williams was uncannily good in her performance. We leave the film still not really knowing who Marilyn was, but I have to believe it was exactly like how she was portrayed here because I believe the performance in its entirety. Physicality wise she was spot on--her glowing eyes, the pucker of her lips, her "Marilyn" poses. But so much more than that the sex, the insecurity, the addictive personality, the flakiness, the drive was all there. The real Marilyn and the screen Marilyn were so convincing than a mostly uninspired movie was overwhelmed by her star power.
But about the plot...
Colin Clark, who would later become a moderately successful documentarian, recorded the week he spent with the greatest star in the world while working as the third assistant director in a Laurence Olivier picture. Starting from nothing, and with no qualifications excepting perhaps his beautiful upper lip and dazzling eyes, he managed to secure his job which was really nothing more than a lackey. But what a job for a 23 year old upstart! Perhaps it was natural charm or just really, really good looks that had Marilyn notice him, but in any case he also secured the job as best friend/surrogate husband. Then it ends. The end. Boring.
The plot was actually the dullest and most pointless thing ever. This Colin was an utterly useless character who had utterly useless interactions. There was a silly sub-plot romance between him a seamstress (Emma Watson), and just the generally uninteresting plot about him making it into the film. I understand completely that it was his journal entry and that this was a true story, but this was absolutely one of those types of films where creative licencing should have stepped in and simply taken the nature of Marilyn and constructed something interesting.
But as I said, Williams, who will absolutely get an Oscar nod, made the film sparkle, even when drugged up and drunk (which was often). So many questions were raised about her character which were never properly answered, and rightly so. How much fame is too much for some people? It was miserable to watch a woman from a broken home who jumped from man to man hate the life she led. People loved "Marilyn Monroe", but nobody loved the real her and she knew it.
Other than her the supporting cast was also top notch. Particular to note was Kenneth Branagh who was perfect and hilarious (and perfectly hilarious) doing his impersonation of Sir Laurence Olivier. He currently has my vote as best supporting actor of the year. I giggled all of the way through the film at the grandoiseness of his persona and scarily accurate way he embodied Olivier's performance style. There were also performances of Vivien Leigh, Arthur Miller, and Dame Sybil Thorndike, all wonderful.
This was an actor's movie offering us the tiniest glimpse of one of the most enigmatic personas of all time. I still don't feel like I know anything about her, and I also don't feel like I gained too much from this film, but the performances were good enough for me to give a hearty recommendation.
3/4
Friday, December 16, 2011
Vacas (1992)
Julio Medem's film will be tiresome for those that have no knowledge of the Basque region of Spain or its history with the surrounding areas. But for those who have even the slightest knowledge of what it means to be a Basque person this is a rewarding film full of beautiful imagery and complex themes and metaphors. Medem infuses all of the different myths and "histories" of the Basque people into one film about two rivaling families over the span of three generations. What he believes about Basque nationalism remains unclear--his many messages contradict each other--but what he believes that the people believe they are comes through very clear.
A note about the Basque people from someone with the most basic understanding of the subject: Like German nationalists in the 1930's, they have a complex history of disunity, strong religious beliefs, a paranoia that their land has been invaded by outsiders, and a distrust of modernization.
A new Carlist soldier steals the blood of his fallen neighbor in order to disguise himself and save his life. He is branded as a coward, and his actions have repercussions for the next in his family line. the story jumps forward in time and suddenly Manuel is an old man. He paints cows, is obsessed with a magical pit in the middle of the forest that divides his house from his neighbor's, and tends to his family. His son, and later his grandson (which becomes slightly confusing) are played by the same actor. The message places emphasis on the continuation of the bloodline, and the importance of biological purity.
Unlike Manuel, his son Ignacio is no coward. He is the best woodcutter in the land, which is the best and most masculine achievement that one could hope to have. He supports his wife, gains prestige, and emasculates his neighbor--who is already slightly crazy--by his amazing talents with an axe.
The grandchild, Peru, whose father is slightly suspect, moves to America, only to return as a photographer during the Spanish Civil War.
All of these stories are challenged by their cultural roots, incestuous themes, and the power of love. This film is overseen by mysterious white cows ('vacas' is 'cows' in Spanish), a traditional Basque symbol, and the presence of the mysterious stump to which sacrifice is made. For some this will be an impenetrable bit of post-Almodovar surrealism, but for others this will be a powerful and thought-provoking journey into the mind of an entire group of people who lead a life of religious and political extremism.
The challenges of this way of life are not really examined sufficiently, and some of the writing is hackneyed, but this is an absorbing film with lots and lots to say. I do wish that Medem knew exactly and succinctly what it was that he wanted his audience to take away, though. For example, when analyzed, the incest involved references the continuation of the blood purity which the Basques value. But if incest is a bastardization of nature, perhaps he is making a larger point about Basque nationalism. That would be all well and good except for the fact the two people who engage in this act are the hero and heroine of the story. We sympathize with them, and even though I, of course, was disgusted by the acts that they committed I still found myself rooting for their love to succeed. Where Medem's views came into play and where it was simply story-telling remains unclear. Perhaps he simply wanted to start a discussion. It certainly got my mind working.
When looking at it as simply a film, I think it works. There are fine performance, beautiful--if startling--imagery, and interesting camera work. It does not seem like the work of a novice film maker, but it was Medem's first film which I think is very impressive. Perhaps an editing eye would have done good things in focusing his work.
3/4
A note about the Basque people from someone with the most basic understanding of the subject: Like German nationalists in the 1930's, they have a complex history of disunity, strong religious beliefs, a paranoia that their land has been invaded by outsiders, and a distrust of modernization.
A new Carlist soldier steals the blood of his fallen neighbor in order to disguise himself and save his life. He is branded as a coward, and his actions have repercussions for the next in his family line. the story jumps forward in time and suddenly Manuel is an old man. He paints cows, is obsessed with a magical pit in the middle of the forest that divides his house from his neighbor's, and tends to his family. His son, and later his grandson (which becomes slightly confusing) are played by the same actor. The message places emphasis on the continuation of the bloodline, and the importance of biological purity.
Unlike Manuel, his son Ignacio is no coward. He is the best woodcutter in the land, which is the best and most masculine achievement that one could hope to have. He supports his wife, gains prestige, and emasculates his neighbor--who is already slightly crazy--by his amazing talents with an axe.
The grandchild, Peru, whose father is slightly suspect, moves to America, only to return as a photographer during the Spanish Civil War.
All of these stories are challenged by their cultural roots, incestuous themes, and the power of love. This film is overseen by mysterious white cows ('vacas' is 'cows' in Spanish), a traditional Basque symbol, and the presence of the mysterious stump to which sacrifice is made. For some this will be an impenetrable bit of post-Almodovar surrealism, but for others this will be a powerful and thought-provoking journey into the mind of an entire group of people who lead a life of religious and political extremism.
The challenges of this way of life are not really examined sufficiently, and some of the writing is hackneyed, but this is an absorbing film with lots and lots to say. I do wish that Medem knew exactly and succinctly what it was that he wanted his audience to take away, though. For example, when analyzed, the incest involved references the continuation of the blood purity which the Basques value. But if incest is a bastardization of nature, perhaps he is making a larger point about Basque nationalism. That would be all well and good except for the fact the two people who engage in this act are the hero and heroine of the story. We sympathize with them, and even though I, of course, was disgusted by the acts that they committed I still found myself rooting for their love to succeed. Where Medem's views came into play and where it was simply story-telling remains unclear. Perhaps he simply wanted to start a discussion. It certainly got my mind working.
When looking at it as simply a film, I think it works. There are fine performance, beautiful--if startling--imagery, and interesting camera work. It does not seem like the work of a novice film maker, but it was Medem's first film which I think is very impressive. Perhaps an editing eye would have done good things in focusing his work.
3/4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)