V FOR VENDETTA (2005, James McTeigue, seen in theatre)- while McTeigue is credited as director, writer/producers the Wachowski Brothers have their fingerprints all over this- self-important speeches, androgynous women, and a message of rebellion against a repressive regime all speak to this. The end result is somewhat better than the last two MATRIX movies, but it suffers from many of those films' flaws, most of all an inability to present the brothers' ideas through action (the first had its share of soliloquies too, but the Big Ideas somehow went down easier when Morpheus expounded upon them in the middle of a martial arts demonstration). Portman is OK (she still lacks the star presence necessary to carry a movie), and Weaving does well considering his face is hidden throughout, but it's all so Heavy, due less to the ideas than the seriousness with which the film takes itself in order to sell the ridiculousness. There are a few welcome lighter bits for the audience- namely, the Stephen Fry scenes- and the flashback interlude featuring Natasha Wightman as a now-dead prisoner connect emotionally in a way the rest of the story can't manage. Rating: **.
TURTLES CAN FLY (2004, Bahman Ghobadi, seen on DVD)- had a bad feeling about this from the pre-credits sequence, in which a sullen young girl stands on the edge of a cliff as wailing tribal music plays in the background, but surprisingly this movie turned out to be half-awesome. The awesome half involves one of the more engaging characters to grace the screen of late- a Kurdish teenager called Satellite, who has carved out a fairly comfortable existence in his small village through ingenuity and a strong capitalist instinct (he marshals a team of kids to disarm a bunch of land mines then sells or trades them in town). Satellite's character arc could have supported a movie on its own, which is why it's a shame that the girl on the cliff plays a fairly major role in the movie, as Ghobadi follows her, her armless brother, and a small boy whose identity is only revealed later. When the American troops arrive, I wasn't much interested in the TV-friendly plight of the girl and her family- I wanted to see how Satellite dealt with the change. Too bad Ghobadi didn't trust the Western audience to care without wallowing in miserablism. Rating: **1/2.
THREE... EXTREMES (2005, Fruit Chan/Chan-wook Park/Takashi Miike, seen on DVD)- if I'm not mistaken, the American cut of the film shifts around the order of the shorts, with Miike's "Box" moved to the end, and I've gotta say that this was a wise choice. First off, Chan's "Dumplings," a "Monkey's Paw"-style horror story with a pretty gross twist. This short's a one-trick pony, the whole point being that we're supposed to be repulsed by what the heroine eats in order to stay young, and frankly that repulsion doesn't make for a very interesting movie. On to Park's "Cut," which finds him working again in the elegant, convoluted violence mode of LADY VENGEANCE- the film looks great, but it tries much too hard to shock. The same could not be said of the Miike, easily the best of the lot. The first twenty minutes are as tightly controlled as the opening reels of AUDITION, and when the story takes a macabre turn, it's shocking without feeling exploitative, and the dreamlike imagery in the film is fascinating. Also, the female lead is pretty smokin'. I think part of the problem with these omnibus films is that the producers largely hire directors who make features, so that when they have to scale back the running time, the stories are either gimmicky (Chan) or play like rejected feature ideas (Park). Only Miike, who is as prolific as anyone in the world nowadays, makes a film that feels like it's supposed to be as long as it is. Rating: ** (Chan: *; Park: *1/2; Miike: ***).
A NEW LEAF (1971, Elaine May, seen on *ugh* video)- hadn't seen this since college, and the viewing was of course occasioned by the May article in this month's FILM COMMENT. I'm happy to say that this film is as hilarious as I'd remembered, if not more so. The direction of the film is endearingly rough-edged as most of the best 70s comedies were, and I appreciated that May eases us into the hilarious Henry-Henrietta relationship, taking almost half an hour to establish Henry the aging cad spendthrift before putting Henrietta in his path. Walter Matthau should be the worst possible choice to play Henry, but he somehow sells it, and May is priceless as Henrietta, hilariously inept but so guileless she's completely endearing from the first dropped teacup. Plenty of great comic bits (the title of this post somehow makes for a classic one, somehow sustained over also two minutes), but also warm without ever becoming cutesy or soppily sentimental. Someone put this out on DVD in my opinion. Rating: ***1/2.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Funeral tango
Last week my aunt Nancy passed away. I've been lucky in my life not to have had to attend too many funerals, but ever since we found out that Nancy had cancer a year or so ago, we knew this day would come. Yet it didn't affect me the way it did others, mainly because I never knew her all that well. When I was little, I'd see her at Christmas and Thanksgiving, and at the grandparents' birthdays, but that was about it. And when I did see her, she was always very quiet, listening intently to others but rarely saying much. So it came as a surprise today during the memorial service to hear that those who were closest to her remember her as being lively and passionate, especially about politics. And I thought, somewhat annoyed, "where was this Aunt Nancy? I would've liked to have known her."
Nancy was my aunt on my dad's side, through marriage to my uncle Tom. This side of the family has never been all the close-knit, perhaps because there are so many of them (my dad's one of seven, and there are a whole mess of grandkids too) and they're fairly dispersed. So while my parents and I keep in contact with everyone on that side, we only see a few of them with any regularity, and Nancy and Tom weren't one of these few. By the time I went off to college, I rarely attended family functions, mostly due to other commitments and the feeling I got that missing them wouldn't be that big a deal (plus my grandmother has a whole mess of cats, and I'm allergic). But now I wonder if maybe I should have made more time for this side of the family- whereas some people relate better to kids (my grandpa is great with kids, but has a harder time with adults), others are more interesting when you've grown up. I think that Nancy fit into the latter group, and now it's too late for me to get to know her.
I attended today's service and expressed my condolences to her loved ones. They were taking it pretty well under the circumstances, and I'm grateful I haven't yet had to deal with a loss like this. Still, the whole occasion gave me pause, since as I hardly knew Nancy, I hardly felt a sense of loss. And this seemed wrong to me. I realize that we can't go around mourning everyone who passes away, but she was family, and she was never enough a part of my life for me to miss her now that she's gone. I felt a little out of place, truth be told. I suppose I'm lucky, that I'm far enough removed from the loss that I can be philosophical about it, and that my thoughts may yet spur me to connect on a more significant level with my family before I lose them too. I do know this- if I ever lose someone who's truly close, I fear that it will hit me hard.
Nancy was my aunt on my dad's side, through marriage to my uncle Tom. This side of the family has never been all the close-knit, perhaps because there are so many of them (my dad's one of seven, and there are a whole mess of grandkids too) and they're fairly dispersed. So while my parents and I keep in contact with everyone on that side, we only see a few of them with any regularity, and Nancy and Tom weren't one of these few. By the time I went off to college, I rarely attended family functions, mostly due to other commitments and the feeling I got that missing them wouldn't be that big a deal (plus my grandmother has a whole mess of cats, and I'm allergic). But now I wonder if maybe I should have made more time for this side of the family- whereas some people relate better to kids (my grandpa is great with kids, but has a harder time with adults), others are more interesting when you've grown up. I think that Nancy fit into the latter group, and now it's too late for me to get to know her.
I attended today's service and expressed my condolences to her loved ones. They were taking it pretty well under the circumstances, and I'm grateful I haven't yet had to deal with a loss like this. Still, the whole occasion gave me pause, since as I hardly knew Nancy, I hardly felt a sense of loss. And this seemed wrong to me. I realize that we can't go around mourning everyone who passes away, but she was family, and she was never enough a part of my life for me to miss her now that she's gone. I felt a little out of place, truth be told. I suppose I'm lucky, that I'm far enough removed from the loss that I can be philosophical about it, and that my thoughts may yet spur me to connect on a more significant level with my family before I lose them too. I do know this- if I ever lose someone who's truly close, I fear that it will hit me hard.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
A Double Dose of Documentary
DAVE CHAPPELLE'S BLOCK PARTY (2005, Michel Gondry)- How many times can a critic, even a nonpro like me, get away with saying "this movie is awesome because I was smiling/laughing/tingling with delight from beginning to end"? I guess I ought to come up with better reasoning than this, especially so soon after TRISTRAM SHANDY. So... ah, OK. This actually deals with the idea of community more uniquely than any film (documentary or otherwise) since WOODSTOCK. There are many different communities represented here- the Bed-Stuy neighborhood, Chappelle's hometown, "the black community", and so on. But just as important is the artists who are spotlighted by the show- these guys (and ladies) have known each other for years, as Aamir "?uestlove" Thompson points out when he relates stories of open-mike nights years ago where the Roots would be the backup band for Mos Def, Common, Erykah Badu, and other artists who are playing the Block Party. And Chappelle, putting on his dream concert, makes a genial master of ceremonies for the film as well- he's a fan of the acts as well as a friend, and he also cares deeply for his fans and wants to do right by them (one senses that his uneasiness with the Comedy Central deal was rooted in this). Despite his status as a comedy superstar, he comes off as generous as well, not just with the musical acts, but also in his interaction with regular folks on the street- he gives them the spotlight, as when "Mr. T" comes up onstage for a "battle", or when a waiter shares his "N**** on the Side" rap with him. Most of all, BLOCK PARTY is a film about an event, a "happening" (as they used to say), and while most filmmakers would have been content to put it all in chronological order, Gondry and his editors cut between the show and the preparations for it, to excellent effect. Sometimes it's something so simple as cutting from Chappelle telling a joke to the crowd to him rehearsing the joke with the musicians; other times it's more complicated, like when he sits down and playing Thelonius Monk's "Round About Midnight" on a thrift-store piano (a surprising moment), and then the music continues under footage of the Central State (Ohio! Woohoo!) marching band boarding the buses up to New York for the show. In short, I expected great music, I expected to laugh. But I didn't expect the film to be this warm, and on top of all the rest, that's an achievement. Besides, with all the other preparations and performances that must've taken place, this will make for an awesome DVD. Rating: ***1/2.
THE WILD PARROTS OF TELEGRAPH HILL (2003, Judy Irving)- On the other hand, I was expecting this to be genial, but the truth is that even at 83 minutes it feels padded out. In truth, Mark Bittner's not interesting enough to sustain a movie this long, and aside from the wild parrots he's all it's got. The parrots are pretty cool, I guess- Mingus certainly is a feisty little fella- and watching them climb and flying and preen and peck at each other is cool up to a point, but I couldn't shake the feeling that while this could have made a pretty good half-hour special on Animal Planet, it's just not enough to be a movie. Rating: *1/2.
THE WILD PARROTS OF TELEGRAPH HILL (2003, Judy Irving)- On the other hand, I was expecting this to be genial, but the truth is that even at 83 minutes it feels padded out. In truth, Mark Bittner's not interesting enough to sustain a movie this long, and aside from the wild parrots he's all it's got. The parrots are pretty cool, I guess- Mingus certainly is a feisty little fella- and watching them climb and flying and preen and peck at each other is cool up to a point, but I couldn't shake the feeling that while this could have made a pretty good half-hour special on Animal Planet, it's just not enough to be a movie. Rating: *1/2.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Six movie pileup
TRISTRAM SHANDY: A COCK AND BULL STORY (2005, Michael Winterbottom, seen in theatre)- I can't really go into too much detail about why this movie was as awesome as it was, other than I was laughing pretty much the entire duration. It's less ADAPTATION than DAY FOR NIGHT, albeit much more overtly comedic, as it dissects the perils of making a film by taking its cue from an impossible project- an adaptation of an acclaimed, nearly impossible-to-adapt book that almost no one involved seems to have actually read. The result is meta as all getout- a film-within-a-film, Jeremy Northam and Ian Hart as "Mark" Winterbottom and a Frank Cottrell Boyce surrogate, lots of clever allusions that are well-deployed (lest the film come off as SHREK for the arthouse set). Also, more priceless bits than you can shake the proverbial stick at- "Tuscan sunset", men in wigs futzing around while a woman gives birth, "a womb with a view", LANCELOT DU LAC, the Gillian Anderson bits (has it really been six years since THE HOUSE OF MIRTH?), watching the dailies, the black page, and everything involving Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon's actorly bickering and jockeying, up to and including the final credits. Rating: ***1/2 ("Because it's funny. Isn't that enough?").
THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA (2005, Tommy Lee Jones, seen in theatre)- feels more like late John Huston than Peckinpah, actually- the story of a man who goes on a seemingly mad quest to honor another's memory. Would be better, methinks, without the screenplay's chronological noodling (can Guillermo Arriaga even write in chronological order?), which distracts from the simplicity of the narrative. However, much of this is cleared up by the second half, which concentrates almost entirely on Jones' mission, with only a handful of cutaways to his pursuers. Moment out of time: Jones sitting alone in a bar in Mexico, waiting for a telephone call, while a girl plays an out of tune piano in the background and everyone goes about their business- not sure why this scene in particular affected me, but it did. Rating: **1/2.
NEIL YOUNG: HEART OF GOLD (2006, Jonathan Demme, seen in theatre)- half the battle is that I like Neil Young, and since this is the gentle, country-inflected solo Young rather than the more acidic Crazy Horse-backed Young, this is obviously a Movie For Me. And Demme, to his credit, stays out of the way- after all the musicians get a little introduction, it's all about the concert footage. As in STOP MAKING SENSE, the audience is largely incidental to the film, not seen and only heard while applauding. Demme gets a lot of mileage from closeups of various band members, and especially Young himself, whose facial expressions are at times heartrending. Young being Young, there's none of the bombast typical in most stage performances, leaving us with the man, the band, and the music. And sometimes not even the band, as when he stands alone in a spotlight and sings "The Needle and the Damage Done" or in the final number, which is filmed with Young on a bare stage, sitting down, wearing a pair of dorky-looking specs and playing to an empty Ryman Auditorium. Rating: ***.
NINE LIVES (2005, Rodrigo Garcia, seen on DVD)- much better than I was expecting, to be honest, since so often films like this come off as acting exercises, but here Garcia foregrounds the stories, a set of small-scale character vignettes. With a cast like this (Holly Hunter, Sissy Spacek, Glenn Close, etc.), you expect solid acting, but none of the performances are showoff-y, which works in the film's favor. One of the big surprises was that, despite the usually hit-and-miss nature of the stories in films of this sort, there are no real letdowns in the bunch, and a few of the scenes are excellent ("Diana," starring Robin Wright Penn and Jason Isaacs, has justifiably gotten most of the press, but I also have a soft spot for "Samantha," with Amanda Seyfried as a girl who resists the idea of going away to school because she wants to care for her dying dad). In the final segment, the film takes a surprising narrative leap away from the more grounded stories that preceded it, and in my opinion it works, although I can see why some might believe otherwise. Certainly worth your time. Rating: ***.
THE TRIAL OF JOAN OF ARC (1962, Robert Bresson, seen on Turner Classic Movies)- I don't usually watch television, but I felt like I could make an exception for one of Bresson's rarest, showing in a one-time engagement on TCM. And oh man, was it worth it- pretty much what you'd expect from a Bresson Jeanne d'Arc story, but in a good way- his trademark austerity actually helps to underline the dehuminizing nature of Joan's trials and incarceration. Surprising, how much character complexity comes through despite the fact that Bresson stuck to trial transcripts- we see a young woman who is strong but frightened, illuminated by faith and steadfast and unquestioning of it, tempted though she may be with the thought of saving her life. The only other Joan of Arc film with this much depth is Rivette's, and that is nearly four times as long and covers most of her adult life- Dreyer's, towering achievement though it may be, isn't a character study, as character complexity wasn't silent cinema's strong point. I have no idea when I'll get to see this again, but this certainly deserves mention as an important part of Bresson's filmography. As for me, the only "canonical" Bresson I have yet to see is FOUR NIGHTS OF A DREAMER- anybody know where I can find it? Rating: ***1/2.
THE LADY OF MUSASHINO (1951, Kenji Mizoguchi, seen on DVD)- this starts fairly leisurely for such a short film (84 minutes), but as the film transpires it begins to build in power. The theme of the film is the limitations of women in Japanese society, and that the story is set immediately after World War II is crucial, since at that time Japan was struggling to catch up with the rest of the world. The protagonist, however, insists on living as a traditional woman- remaining devoted to an unworthy husband, rebuffing the advances of a cousin who loves her, and living beyond reproach. Meanwhile, others take advantage- another cousin asks her to mortgage her property so that he may take out a loan, her husband cheats and eventually runs off with her mooching cousin's wife, and so on- but she can't bring herself to abandon her old ways, denying herself love and happiness and eventually poisoning herself to save her family legacy. The idea of the old town of Musashino as a metaphor for the dying traditions comes off less heavyhanded that it would in less assured hands, and sets up a beautiful final shot- a pan across rural Musashino to reveal a modern city just over the hill. Rating: ***1/2.
THE THREE BURIALS OF MELQUIADES ESTRADA (2005, Tommy Lee Jones, seen in theatre)- feels more like late John Huston than Peckinpah, actually- the story of a man who goes on a seemingly mad quest to honor another's memory. Would be better, methinks, without the screenplay's chronological noodling (can Guillermo Arriaga even write in chronological order?), which distracts from the simplicity of the narrative. However, much of this is cleared up by the second half, which concentrates almost entirely on Jones' mission, with only a handful of cutaways to his pursuers. Moment out of time: Jones sitting alone in a bar in Mexico, waiting for a telephone call, while a girl plays an out of tune piano in the background and everyone goes about their business- not sure why this scene in particular affected me, but it did. Rating: **1/2.
NEIL YOUNG: HEART OF GOLD (2006, Jonathan Demme, seen in theatre)- half the battle is that I like Neil Young, and since this is the gentle, country-inflected solo Young rather than the more acidic Crazy Horse-backed Young, this is obviously a Movie For Me. And Demme, to his credit, stays out of the way- after all the musicians get a little introduction, it's all about the concert footage. As in STOP MAKING SENSE, the audience is largely incidental to the film, not seen and only heard while applauding. Demme gets a lot of mileage from closeups of various band members, and especially Young himself, whose facial expressions are at times heartrending. Young being Young, there's none of the bombast typical in most stage performances, leaving us with the man, the band, and the music. And sometimes not even the band, as when he stands alone in a spotlight and sings "The Needle and the Damage Done" or in the final number, which is filmed with Young on a bare stage, sitting down, wearing a pair of dorky-looking specs and playing to an empty Ryman Auditorium. Rating: ***.
NINE LIVES (2005, Rodrigo Garcia, seen on DVD)- much better than I was expecting, to be honest, since so often films like this come off as acting exercises, but here Garcia foregrounds the stories, a set of small-scale character vignettes. With a cast like this (Holly Hunter, Sissy Spacek, Glenn Close, etc.), you expect solid acting, but none of the performances are showoff-y, which works in the film's favor. One of the big surprises was that, despite the usually hit-and-miss nature of the stories in films of this sort, there are no real letdowns in the bunch, and a few of the scenes are excellent ("Diana," starring Robin Wright Penn and Jason Isaacs, has justifiably gotten most of the press, but I also have a soft spot for "Samantha," with Amanda Seyfried as a girl who resists the idea of going away to school because she wants to care for her dying dad). In the final segment, the film takes a surprising narrative leap away from the more grounded stories that preceded it, and in my opinion it works, although I can see why some might believe otherwise. Certainly worth your time. Rating: ***.
THE TRIAL OF JOAN OF ARC (1962, Robert Bresson, seen on Turner Classic Movies)- I don't usually watch television, but I felt like I could make an exception for one of Bresson's rarest, showing in a one-time engagement on TCM. And oh man, was it worth it- pretty much what you'd expect from a Bresson Jeanne d'Arc story, but in a good way- his trademark austerity actually helps to underline the dehuminizing nature of Joan's trials and incarceration. Surprising, how much character complexity comes through despite the fact that Bresson stuck to trial transcripts- we see a young woman who is strong but frightened, illuminated by faith and steadfast and unquestioning of it, tempted though she may be with the thought of saving her life. The only other Joan of Arc film with this much depth is Rivette's, and that is nearly four times as long and covers most of her adult life- Dreyer's, towering achievement though it may be, isn't a character study, as character complexity wasn't silent cinema's strong point. I have no idea when I'll get to see this again, but this certainly deserves mention as an important part of Bresson's filmography. As for me, the only "canonical" Bresson I have yet to see is FOUR NIGHTS OF A DREAMER- anybody know where I can find it? Rating: ***1/2.
THE LADY OF MUSASHINO (1951, Kenji Mizoguchi, seen on DVD)- this starts fairly leisurely for such a short film (84 minutes), but as the film transpires it begins to build in power. The theme of the film is the limitations of women in Japanese society, and that the story is set immediately after World War II is crucial, since at that time Japan was struggling to catch up with the rest of the world. The protagonist, however, insists on living as a traditional woman- remaining devoted to an unworthy husband, rebuffing the advances of a cousin who loves her, and living beyond reproach. Meanwhile, others take advantage- another cousin asks her to mortgage her property so that he may take out a loan, her husband cheats and eventually runs off with her mooching cousin's wife, and so on- but she can't bring herself to abandon her old ways, denying herself love and happiness and eventually poisoning herself to save her family legacy. The idea of the old town of Musashino as a metaphor for the dying traditions comes off less heavyhanded that it would in less assured hands, and sets up a beautiful final shot- a pan across rural Musashino to reveal a modern city just over the hill. Rating: ***1/2.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Life is precious. And God. And the Bible.
Silly me, I thought the gay marriage issue was dead. Guess not- I received a telephone message while I was at the gym today asking me to sign a petition requesting that Congress approve an anti-gay-marriage amendment. Naturally, I deleted the message, but it has pissed me off most of the afternoon. I wonder how much of this renewed effort by the right wingers has to do with the fact that the Intelligent Design push has stalled out, leaving them without a cause to whine about.
This issue has been kind of talked out, so I won't say too much. Personally, I don't mind gay marriage any more than I mind straight marriage. I say any two people can marry (or, failing that, commit to a lifelong relationship) provided that both are mindful and accepting of the commitment they're making to each other. Hell, I've known a pair of women who have been together nearly forty years. How their love is somehow less legit than a couple of people who hook up in Vegas and go to a wedding chapel is beyond me.
Which brings me to the laughable idea of the "sancitity of marriage." Give me a fucking break, people. From what I can tell, straight people have been destroying the sancitity of marriage for years. Spousal and child abuse, rising divorce rates, adultery, no-fault divorce laws, the aforementioned Vegas wedding chapels- what do these things have to do with two men holding hands in the park? Not a goddamn thing. But morality is UNDER ATTACK!!!!, say the thumpers, and since Americans love a quick fix, homosexuals are a convenient scapegoat. Better we go after a not-very-popular subculture than deal with problems that are closer at hand.
More so than the CRASH victory, I'd have to say that the real issue here is deep-seated homophobia. Now, some of the more reasonable-sounding fundies might not admit it, but they're hiding behind the Word of God in order to air out their own prejudices. And the "slippery slope" argument is ridiculous- how does gay marriage lead to such things as bestiality? It's a long stretch to connect a loving relationship between two fully-aware members of the same sex and a one-sided one between a person and a far-less-cognizant animal.
What really bugs me about this whole thing is that the self-appointed moral arbiters of society use their discomfort with homosexuality as an excuse to deny them certain rights the rest of us have. How exactly does it affect you if two people love each other, even if they are of the same sex? Lest we forget that previous generations weren't comfortable with minorities and women having the right to vote either- but that's legal now, isn't it?
That the government takes any of this seriously is troubling. Hell, we're spending hundreds of billions on a war that has no forseeable end, and the job situation hasn't improved one bit, but hell, I can live with my relatives getting shipped off to Iraq and having my hours at work scaled back, just as long as them homos don't get married, right? For most reasonable people, gay marriage isn't that important to them- they're not necessarily for it or against it, and they don't think about it that much because it doesn't affect them like some of the more important issues do. But you know how it works- it ain't how much you're hurting, but rather how loud you cry.
Also, some tiny reviews:
JARHEAD (2005, Sam Mendes)- some compelling ideas at work here, with a few good performances (Sarsgaard in particular) and impressive effects sequences involving the burning oil wells (the best we could have hoped for, outside of simply using footage from Herzog's LESSONS OF DARKNESS). Still, not all that interesting as a whole, as the soldiers' realization of their own obsolescence doesn't make for particularly good drama. Rating: **.
WHERE THE TRUTH LIES (2005, Atom Egoyan)- a step in the right direction after Egoyan's overly serious, needlessly convoluted ARARAT, here the director manages to class up the tabloid-fodder source material- it never becomes art per se, but it's more than the throwaway it could have been, which is a credit to Egoyan's filmmaking chops. Colin Firth seems ecstatic to play a role other than the stern-yet-sensitive Brit that's become his stock in trade, and this comes through in the performance. Rating: **1/2.
RUNNING SCARED (2006, Wayne Kramer)- I'll certainly take this over Kramer's last film, THE COOLER. This hallucinatory gangland fairy tale is definitely unhinged (never more so than in the scene with the child-molesting couple), but it's also highly watchable, although my stomach for movies like this (and DOMINO, which is better than this) is stronger than most other people's, so take my assessment with a grain of salt. The film lacks a strong narrative through-line to make it seem like something more than one-damn-thing-after-another, and while Paul Walker had to welcome the chance to play vulgar and scruffy, the jury's still out on his acting. Rating: **1/2.
This issue has been kind of talked out, so I won't say too much. Personally, I don't mind gay marriage any more than I mind straight marriage. I say any two people can marry (or, failing that, commit to a lifelong relationship) provided that both are mindful and accepting of the commitment they're making to each other. Hell, I've known a pair of women who have been together nearly forty years. How their love is somehow less legit than a couple of people who hook up in Vegas and go to a wedding chapel is beyond me.
Which brings me to the laughable idea of the "sancitity of marriage." Give me a fucking break, people. From what I can tell, straight people have been destroying the sancitity of marriage for years. Spousal and child abuse, rising divorce rates, adultery, no-fault divorce laws, the aforementioned Vegas wedding chapels- what do these things have to do with two men holding hands in the park? Not a goddamn thing. But morality is UNDER ATTACK!!!!, say the thumpers, and since Americans love a quick fix, homosexuals are a convenient scapegoat. Better we go after a not-very-popular subculture than deal with problems that are closer at hand.
More so than the CRASH victory, I'd have to say that the real issue here is deep-seated homophobia. Now, some of the more reasonable-sounding fundies might not admit it, but they're hiding behind the Word of God in order to air out their own prejudices. And the "slippery slope" argument is ridiculous- how does gay marriage lead to such things as bestiality? It's a long stretch to connect a loving relationship between two fully-aware members of the same sex and a one-sided one between a person and a far-less-cognizant animal.
What really bugs me about this whole thing is that the self-appointed moral arbiters of society use their discomfort with homosexuality as an excuse to deny them certain rights the rest of us have. How exactly does it affect you if two people love each other, even if they are of the same sex? Lest we forget that previous generations weren't comfortable with minorities and women having the right to vote either- but that's legal now, isn't it?
That the government takes any of this seriously is troubling. Hell, we're spending hundreds of billions on a war that has no forseeable end, and the job situation hasn't improved one bit, but hell, I can live with my relatives getting shipped off to Iraq and having my hours at work scaled back, just as long as them homos don't get married, right? For most reasonable people, gay marriage isn't that important to them- they're not necessarily for it or against it, and they don't think about it that much because it doesn't affect them like some of the more important issues do. But you know how it works- it ain't how much you're hurting, but rather how loud you cry.
Also, some tiny reviews:
JARHEAD (2005, Sam Mendes)- some compelling ideas at work here, with a few good performances (Sarsgaard in particular) and impressive effects sequences involving the burning oil wells (the best we could have hoped for, outside of simply using footage from Herzog's LESSONS OF DARKNESS). Still, not all that interesting as a whole, as the soldiers' realization of their own obsolescence doesn't make for particularly good drama. Rating: **.
WHERE THE TRUTH LIES (2005, Atom Egoyan)- a step in the right direction after Egoyan's overly serious, needlessly convoluted ARARAT, here the director manages to class up the tabloid-fodder source material- it never becomes art per se, but it's more than the throwaway it could have been, which is a credit to Egoyan's filmmaking chops. Colin Firth seems ecstatic to play a role other than the stern-yet-sensitive Brit that's become his stock in trade, and this comes through in the performance. Rating: **1/2.
RUNNING SCARED (2006, Wayne Kramer)- I'll certainly take this over Kramer's last film, THE COOLER. This hallucinatory gangland fairy tale is definitely unhinged (never more so than in the scene with the child-molesting couple), but it's also highly watchable, although my stomach for movies like this (and DOMINO, which is better than this) is stronger than most other people's, so take my assessment with a grain of salt. The film lacks a strong narrative through-line to make it seem like something more than one-damn-thing-after-another, and while Paul Walker had to welcome the chance to play vulgar and scruffy, the jury's still out on his acting. Rating: **1/2.
Monday, March 06, 2006
CRASH wins. We lose.
It actually happened- the upset-happy hypesters have gotten their way. Sometimes there's a tendency in the entertainment press to turn the Oscars into two-horse races, if for no other reason than to drum up interest- did anybody really think Clooney wouldn't be getting that statuette? But this time around, it actually happened- the underdog vanquished the champ. The question of the day is- why?
Was it the much-ballyhooed homophobia of the voters that caused the BROKEBACK defeat? Was it that CRASH was set in Los Angeles? Were the voters just sick of hearing about BROKEBACK? Did they (heaven forbid) just like CRASH more? I'm not sure. But there's another possibility that hasn't been mentioned much, and this dawned on me last night, during the "issue movies" montage, when I first began considering the possibility of a CRASH victory. The voters thought that CRASH was a more Important movie.
Now I realize that most of the winners lately haven't skewed this way- most of the winners from the past decade have been large-scale entertainments, and the others were melodramatic. But Hollywood, as many presenters reminded us last night, has had some hard times lately. With box office down and more potential moviegoers taking their entertainment dollar elsewhere, movies don't matter to people like they used to. So voters began thinking about how future generations would regard their picks- as Clooney stated, Hollywood prides itself on being progressive and ahead of the curve when it comes to important issues. The nominees this year were unusually heavy on issues-heavy fare- homosexuality, terrorism, freedom of speech and the press, and racism carried the day. And more than the other nominees, CRASH wore its issues on its sleeve, the kind of socially concerned work that deserves to be honored, in their eyes.
BROKEBACK, on the other hand, treaded lightly in this department. Yes, its heroes were the victims of an intolerant era, which wouldn't allow them to love they way they could have, but it didn't preach. Much like last year's winner, MILLION DOLLAR BABY, it was about telling a story first and foremost, and any issues it raised were kept as subtext. That both BABY and BROKEBACK got the more vocal righties in an uproar due to their storylines is a subject for another time.
The only competition that CRASH had in the preachiness sweepstakes was GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK. But whereas Clooney's film was safely in the past, CRASH oh-so-boldly took place in the present. And yes, CRASH took place in Los Angeles, which was probably not lost on Hollywood voters. So CRASH, in spite of having characters foam about in elaborate speeches about racial issues on the streets of a big city (rather than keeping their damn traps shut at least until they closed the car doors), was interpreted by many as "reflective of the way we live now." The film became a sleeper hit this past summer. The phrase "CRASH moment" briefly entered the vernacular. Oprah, that eternal arbiter of pop-cultural significance, even invoked the film after she was denied after-hours entrance to an upscale Paris boutique to buy a $3000 purse for Tina Turner. I mean, we've all been there, right?
To my recollection, there was never any uproar over the film like there was over BROKEBACK. Maybe because CRASH comforted us with the idea that, deep down, we all have prejudices, but we need to learn to live together despite them. Awwwwwww, ain't that nice? But does being provoked then salved excuse the manipulative dramaturgy and jaw-droppingly shameless scenes given us by writer-director-Scots delicacy Paul Haggis? Obviously, to many, it does. Though not to me, and certainly not to this guy. But my opinions on the film itself aren't the issue here. It's not about who I would've picked, but why CRASH won. And I can't help but feel like a lot of voters forgot that the category was called Best Picture. BEST, as in most good, not most socially-concerned or most Important.
In one of his acceptance speeches last night, Paul Haggis quoted Brecht, saying that art should not be a mirror to society, but a hammer. That he considers his art a hammer goes a long way toward explaining how unsubtle CRASH is.
Was it the much-ballyhooed homophobia of the voters that caused the BROKEBACK defeat? Was it that CRASH was set in Los Angeles? Were the voters just sick of hearing about BROKEBACK? Did they (heaven forbid) just like CRASH more? I'm not sure. But there's another possibility that hasn't been mentioned much, and this dawned on me last night, during the "issue movies" montage, when I first began considering the possibility of a CRASH victory. The voters thought that CRASH was a more Important movie.
Now I realize that most of the winners lately haven't skewed this way- most of the winners from the past decade have been large-scale entertainments, and the others were melodramatic. But Hollywood, as many presenters reminded us last night, has had some hard times lately. With box office down and more potential moviegoers taking their entertainment dollar elsewhere, movies don't matter to people like they used to. So voters began thinking about how future generations would regard their picks- as Clooney stated, Hollywood prides itself on being progressive and ahead of the curve when it comes to important issues. The nominees this year were unusually heavy on issues-heavy fare- homosexuality, terrorism, freedom of speech and the press, and racism carried the day. And more than the other nominees, CRASH wore its issues on its sleeve, the kind of socially concerned work that deserves to be honored, in their eyes.
BROKEBACK, on the other hand, treaded lightly in this department. Yes, its heroes were the victims of an intolerant era, which wouldn't allow them to love they way they could have, but it didn't preach. Much like last year's winner, MILLION DOLLAR BABY, it was about telling a story first and foremost, and any issues it raised were kept as subtext. That both BABY and BROKEBACK got the more vocal righties in an uproar due to their storylines is a subject for another time.
The only competition that CRASH had in the preachiness sweepstakes was GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK. But whereas Clooney's film was safely in the past, CRASH oh-so-boldly took place in the present. And yes, CRASH took place in Los Angeles, which was probably not lost on Hollywood voters. So CRASH, in spite of having characters foam about in elaborate speeches about racial issues on the streets of a big city (rather than keeping their damn traps shut at least until they closed the car doors), was interpreted by many as "reflective of the way we live now." The film became a sleeper hit this past summer. The phrase "CRASH moment" briefly entered the vernacular. Oprah, that eternal arbiter of pop-cultural significance, even invoked the film after she was denied after-hours entrance to an upscale Paris boutique to buy a $3000 purse for Tina Turner. I mean, we've all been there, right?
To my recollection, there was never any uproar over the film like there was over BROKEBACK. Maybe because CRASH comforted us with the idea that, deep down, we all have prejudices, but we need to learn to live together despite them. Awwwwwww, ain't that nice? But does being provoked then salved excuse the manipulative dramaturgy and jaw-droppingly shameless scenes given us by writer-director-Scots delicacy Paul Haggis? Obviously, to many, it does. Though not to me, and certainly not to this guy. But my opinions on the film itself aren't the issue here. It's not about who I would've picked, but why CRASH won. And I can't help but feel like a lot of voters forgot that the category was called Best Picture. BEST, as in most good, not most socially-concerned or most Important.
In one of his acceptance speeches last night, Paul Haggis quoted Brecht, saying that art should not be a mirror to society, but a hammer. That he considers his art a hammer goes a long way toward explaining how unsubtle CRASH is.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Youthful and Serene
THE BEST OF YOUTH (2003, Marco Tullio Giordana)- I can't help but feel like many of the accolades for this film have a lot to do with the fact that it's six hours long and doesn't ever really get boring. And yeah, that's certainly an achievement, but in the end this is a film I admired much more than I enjoyed. Some of the more mainstream critics have celebrated the novelistic feel of the film (it takes place over forty years, for one thing), but storytelling is kind of low on my list of important factors to enjoy a film. I think that viewing the long version of ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA just last weekend kind of throws this film into perspective- whereas Leone's work is endlessly cinematic, Tullio Giordana's direction is fairly prosaic, and subservient to the screenplay, which feels like a fastidiously faithful adaptation of a never-published novel. I was pretty enthusiastic after the first hour, which establishes the primary players in the film in a relaxed way, but once the brothers Carati are separated, it's off to the races. The narrative caroms from major event to major event in an attempt to follow the characters over four decades, but there are precious few character vignettes that help us really understand them (nothing on par with, say, the scene with young Patsy and the pastry in ...AMERICA). There are some elements that did register strongly with me (the Giorgia storyline, the New Year's Eve sequence), but just as many that weren't as effective as they might have been (in particular Giulia's Red Brigade experience, which was hurt by the presence of Sonia Bergamasco, easily the film's least expressive performer, as Giulia). I can see why this was a sensation in Italy- many of the country's major events from the past half-century come into play here- but some of this may get lost in translation for American viewers. But I have a feeling that my tempered reaction to the film had less to do with historical context than the uninspired nature of the film itself. Rating: **1/2.
SERENITY (2005, Joss Whedon, seen on DVD)- I'm a newcomer to the "Firefly" universe, but I certainly see the challenge Whedon faced bringing it to the big screen- how to satisfy the intensely fanatical (and vocal) followers of the original series while making it palatable for newcomers? For about an hour, I was totally into the film, which in its first half is chock full of storytelling verve (no fewer than three reveals in the first ten minutes) and sassy, engaging characters (you can't manufacture the kind of chemistry the cast has attained). Alas, once that first hour has passed, the film devolves into a more straight-faced kind of space opera, in which the scrappy rebels discover that they need to fight after all. Frankly, I missed the more irreverent tone in the opening reels (something which no doubt distinguished the series), and although the second half of the film isn't badly done, it's just a tad disappointing in light of what has come before. Still, I'm certainly intrigued (the series is going in the ol'Netflix queue), and the acting is quite good all around- Nathan Fillion makes a charismatic antihero, Adam Baldwin gets most of the good punchlines, and Jewel Staite is the most successful at delivering Whedon's sometimes convoluted dialogue ("goin' on a year now I ain't had nothin' twist my nethers weren't run on batteries!"). And casting Chiwetel Ejiofor as the icy baddie was a pretty genius move, as the film perks up whenever he's onscreen. Rating: **1/2.
SERENITY (2005, Joss Whedon, seen on DVD)- I'm a newcomer to the "Firefly" universe, but I certainly see the challenge Whedon faced bringing it to the big screen- how to satisfy the intensely fanatical (and vocal) followers of the original series while making it palatable for newcomers? For about an hour, I was totally into the film, which in its first half is chock full of storytelling verve (no fewer than three reveals in the first ten minutes) and sassy, engaging characters (you can't manufacture the kind of chemistry the cast has attained). Alas, once that first hour has passed, the film devolves into a more straight-faced kind of space opera, in which the scrappy rebels discover that they need to fight after all. Frankly, I missed the more irreverent tone in the opening reels (something which no doubt distinguished the series), and although the second half of the film isn't badly done, it's just a tad disappointing in light of what has come before. Still, I'm certainly intrigued (the series is going in the ol'Netflix queue), and the acting is quite good all around- Nathan Fillion makes a charismatic antihero, Adam Baldwin gets most of the good punchlines, and Jewel Staite is the most successful at delivering Whedon's sometimes convoluted dialogue ("goin' on a year now I ain't had nothin' twist my nethers weren't run on batteries!"). And casting Chiwetel Ejiofor as the icy baddie was a pretty genius move, as the film perks up whenever he's onscreen. Rating: **1/2.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Thanks buds
I'd like to thank those who wrote in regarding my last post about getting a gym membership. In retrospect, I just pushed myself too hard that first day (I'll lay off doing the front crawl stroke for a while) and now that I've gotten a better handle on my limits I can work on gently nudging them rather than obliterating them. I've been back since every day save yesterday, when the gym's abbreviated hours coincided with my movie-road-trip (see below). Sadly, the pool is closed through this weekend for heating system repairs, so I have to compensate in other ways. I did half an hour on the treadmill today, followed by twenty minutes on some skiing device and another twenty on the bike. And I was going pretty fast on all three, so I think I did pretty well. I've decided I like using the treadmill at the gym more than walking on the track, not least because nobody gets in the way on the treadmill. I'm happy with my routine of going during the daytime- it's not nearly as busy, and there are fewer preening, strutting gym jocks and more elderly folks, which helps my own body image. Also, I've come to the conclusion that locker room modesty exists in inverse proportion to age- the younger folks are more likely to change discreetly, while it seems every old guy feels the need to hang out with his wang out.
And now that I've gotten that out of the way, let's move on to the real business at hand...
CACHÉ (2005, Michael Haneke, seen in theatre)- in some ways this is Haneke's most mainstream effort (the relatively large number of shot-countershot dialogue setups took me by surprise), but the master has hardly gone soft. For one thing, this mofo is really insinuating- I recently read a comment that nearly every still you could take from CACHÉ is mundane-looking, but it's exactly these boring-looking images that make it tense, as they situate the action within a recognizable real-world space. Haneke, among other things, is a master of shot duration, and every shot in this film is held precisely as long as it needs to be to attain full effect, and no longer. Consider the film's opening shot- a daytime view of an upper-middle-class Parisian home, seen from down the street. The opening credits roll, and the shot continues. Then the credits disappear, but the shot remains onscreen. Nothing happens, and the audience gets to thinking- something is afoot. Finally, we hear Georges and Anne Laurent (Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche, both excellent) in voiceover, talking about what we're watching, which turns out to be an anonymous video of their home that was left on their doorstep. Only then does Haneke cut away. They receive a number of other videos within the course of the film, and Haneke is canny in his use of digital video to shoot the entire movie, not simply the footage that is sent to Georges and Anne (this is the closest I've ever seen video emulate film, which makes me think the death of celluloid may be nigh after all). I also liked the way that, once we see a setting in one of the videos, Haneke will show it later from this angle. So whodunit? Click here and see... (Warning: SPOILERS) Rating: ***1/2.
Also, I recently watched Rohmer's TRIPLE AGENT on UK DVD, but it really didn't register. Well-made, with the typical Rohmer touch, but perhaps it was a tad too low-key to register when watching at 2 AM. I'll catch it again in the future, I'm sure. Rating: **1/2.
And now that I've gotten that out of the way, let's move on to the real business at hand...
CACHÉ (2005, Michael Haneke, seen in theatre)- in some ways this is Haneke's most mainstream effort (the relatively large number of shot-countershot dialogue setups took me by surprise), but the master has hardly gone soft. For one thing, this mofo is really insinuating- I recently read a comment that nearly every still you could take from CACHÉ is mundane-looking, but it's exactly these boring-looking images that make it tense, as they situate the action within a recognizable real-world space. Haneke, among other things, is a master of shot duration, and every shot in this film is held precisely as long as it needs to be to attain full effect, and no longer. Consider the film's opening shot- a daytime view of an upper-middle-class Parisian home, seen from down the street. The opening credits roll, and the shot continues. Then the credits disappear, but the shot remains onscreen. Nothing happens, and the audience gets to thinking- something is afoot. Finally, we hear Georges and Anne Laurent (Daniel Auteuil and Juliette Binoche, both excellent) in voiceover, talking about what we're watching, which turns out to be an anonymous video of their home that was left on their doorstep. Only then does Haneke cut away. They receive a number of other videos within the course of the film, and Haneke is canny in his use of digital video to shoot the entire movie, not simply the footage that is sent to Georges and Anne (this is the closest I've ever seen video emulate film, which makes me think the death of celluloid may be nigh after all). I also liked the way that, once we see a setting in one of the videos, Haneke will show it later from this angle. So whodunit? Click here and see... (Warning: SPOILERS) Rating: ***1/2.
Also, I recently watched Rohmer's TRIPLE AGENT on UK DVD, but it really didn't register. Well-made, with the typical Rohmer touch, but perhaps it was a tad too low-key to register when watching at 2 AM. I'll catch it again in the future, I'm sure. Rating: **1/2.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Not quite stabbing yourself in the eye, but it's still self-inflicted...
So my birthday was last weekend. Per my request, my parents paid the registration fee for me at the local gym, and today was my first time there. I still have to pay the monthly fees, but since that averages a dollar per day it's not too bad. Now, I'm pretty out of shape, so I was really overdue to start working out regularly. And honestly, a gym is a better idea than just going downstairs and walking on the treadmill for a while and riding a bike when it's nice out. I guess that in a way I'm motivated by money, in the respect that I'm more likely to do something when I'm paying for it. Add to this that if I have to make time to go to the gym, I'll do it, instead of being able to say "oh, I'll just do the treadmill thing later" and putting it off indefinitely.
Anyway, I knew it'd be, um, interesting, since I am somewhat overweight and could stand to lose some pounds. I'm also dieting, so I think a combination of healthy eating and exercise would do me good. But while I had no illusions that my first day at the gym would be a cakewalk, I didn't think it'd be this bad. I jogged a little over a mile and rode the stationary bike for a few miles, but while this got me a tad winded it didn't get rough for me until I went swimming. After half a dozen lengths of the pool, I was done. I shuffled back to the locker room and crouched by the terlet for at least five minutes, expecting to throw up (I hadn't even eaten recently either). Eventually, I was able to get back to my feet, take a shower and change, but my body still feels like a strand of cooked pasta.
I guess the lesson here is to know my limits. Lesson learned. I'll be going back tomorrow, but I may just forego the pool for the time being.
Also, I'll be making an addition to My Top 100 List this afternoon, so keep an eye for it.
Anyway, I knew it'd be, um, interesting, since I am somewhat overweight and could stand to lose some pounds. I'm also dieting, so I think a combination of healthy eating and exercise would do me good. But while I had no illusions that my first day at the gym would be a cakewalk, I didn't think it'd be this bad. I jogged a little over a mile and rode the stationary bike for a few miles, but while this got me a tad winded it didn't get rough for me until I went swimming. After half a dozen lengths of the pool, I was done. I shuffled back to the locker room and crouched by the terlet for at least five minutes, expecting to throw up (I hadn't even eaten recently either). Eventually, I was able to get back to my feet, take a shower and change, but my body still feels like a strand of cooked pasta.
I guess the lesson here is to know my limits. Lesson learned. I'll be going back tomorrow, but I may just forego the pool for the time being.
Also, I'll be making an addition to My Top 100 List this afternoon, so keep an eye for it.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
!!!!! (vague spoilers)
INNOCENCE (2004, Lucile Hadzihalilovic, seen in theatre)- Three words: Ho. Ly. Shit. I haven't been wrapped up this much in the spell cast by a film since, well, since THE NEW WORLD. The setting here is a mysterious, secluded school for girls ages 6 to 12, and the film follows several of them over the course of one year. The girls are divided into "houses", with one girl for each year (years are denoted by differently colored hair ribbons), and the film begins with the youngest, Iris, who arrives in a coffin and finds herself having to cope with the new surroundings and the strict rules that govern it (no contact with the outside world, etc), going to classes (science and ballet are the only curriculum taught) and flowering under the mentorship of seventh-year group leader Bianca. After we learn the rules and routines of the school, we then follow fifth-year student Alice, who yearns for the outside world and prepares for a dance recital that could be her ticket out. Finally, we finish the year with Bianca. I could see this narrative playing out in seven short subjects, one for each year, but I think Hadzihalilovic is wise to distill them into one year, so that we can connect the dots in our mind. It's rare these days to see a film so unabashedly symbolic, and the film's thoughts on girlhood are fascinating. The ages taught by the school aren't an accident- while the story that inspired the film made the girls older, Hadzihalilovic is wise to focus on prepubescent years, with the final year (I'll tread lightly) is the girls' first realization that men are watching them and that they have an effect on the opposite sex. But while it's compelling on these terms, I actually prefer it as a strange fairy-tale creation. While it clearly takes place in the modern world (there are electric lights hanging in the forest, for example), the school's traditions make it feel unstuck in time, "somewhere to the left of the twentieth century," as BABE: PIG IN THE CITY put it. And what to make of the coffins? The film has been attacked by some critics for being pervy material for the raincoat crowd, but the film hardly gawks at the girls. I believe that what these critics find uncomfortable is how closely Hadzihalilovic follows the girls, and how firmly we become ensconced on their world (we never leave the school grounds until the very end). I myself became a little uneasy because I felt like an intruder into this closed society, and this is the point- the theatre scenes near the end underline this. But, made-up controversy aside, INNOCENCE is a beautiful film, chock full of miraculous moments- I loved, for example, the resentment second-year student felt toward newcomer Iris due (presumably) to the loss of her old mentor, something I expect was a yearly occurrence. And near the end of the film, when ballet instructor Marion Cotillard lit up a cigarette and said, "don't worry, you'll soon forget us," it was impossible for me not to think about how much of my own childhood has been forgotten.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
In Lili's petite shoes
IN HER SHOES (2005, Curtis Hanson, seen on DVD)- very nearly a great movie, instead of being a noteworthy example of its genre (the chick-flick dramedy), and it's the most genre-friendly stuff that drags down the rest- the caricatured stepmom character, the tart-mouthed best friend (not Brooke Smith's fault- she plays the character well, it's just not written in a very inspired way). But I almost feel like I'm nit-picking, when there's so much good here. Of paramount importance was that Diaz and Collette were instantly convincing as sisters, and their relationship is a palpable one (doesn't hurt that Collette's in top form, and Diaz has never been better). Keeping them separated for most of the story is a bold idea that pays off because when we see one sister we feel the absence of the other. I also liked that Mark Feuerstein's character never felt like a fantasy figure, but rather a quirky individual with passions (eating out, the 76ers) but a lack of understanding (and admittedly, context) for Collette's complex relationship with Diaz. And thankfully, MacLaine reins it in here, making her grandmother character life-size instead of outsize, thereby grounding her scenes in an elderly woman's reality. And of course Hanson remains unparalleled at location shooting, although I'm not sure we needed Collette running a bunch of dogs up the stairs of Philly's art museum. Rating: ***.
LA PETITE LILI (2003, Claude Miller, seen on DVD)- this well-acted but forgettable drama is my first exposure to Miller's work, and what I've seen here doesn't really inspire me to watch the rest right away. I liked that he doesn't blindly celebrate Julien's artistic temperament- he prattles on about purity and not compromising, but he's young and kind of priggish, so this has just more to do with his romanticization of the artistic process than it does with any real life experience. Meanwhile, others around him are much more pragmatic- famed filmmaker Brice (Bernard Giraudeau) listens to Julien's rantings with a mixture of nostalgia and bemusement, and Lili herself (Ludivine Sagnier) is starstruck in Brice's presence, ambitiously hoping to parlay it into a career for herself. However, the film's final third is less interesting- Julien reuniting family and friends to make an semiautobiographical film isn't the stuff of great drama. Still, some good performances (Giraudeau especially) and naked Ludivine doesn't hurt either. Rating: **.
LA PETITE LILI (2003, Claude Miller, seen on DVD)- this well-acted but forgettable drama is my first exposure to Miller's work, and what I've seen here doesn't really inspire me to watch the rest right away. I liked that he doesn't blindly celebrate Julien's artistic temperament- he prattles on about purity and not compromising, but he's young and kind of priggish, so this has just more to do with his romanticization of the artistic process than it does with any real life experience. Meanwhile, others around him are much more pragmatic- famed filmmaker Brice (Bernard Giraudeau) listens to Julien's rantings with a mixture of nostalgia and bemusement, and Lili herself (Ludivine Sagnier) is starstruck in Brice's presence, ambitiously hoping to parlay it into a career for herself. However, the film's final third is less interesting- Julien reuniting family and friends to make an semiautobiographical film isn't the stuff of great drama. Still, some good performances (Giraudeau especially) and naked Ludivine doesn't hurt either. Rating: **.
4 things meme
Jason tagged me under penalty of, erm... well, he did say "OR ELSE!" And me being a big wuss, that's threat enough for me. Anyhoo...
4 jobs I've had:
1. Grease merchant at McD's (high school)
2. Cancer merchant for Philip Morris (one summer during college- I was responsible for setting up displays at gas stations and the like)
3. Projectionist at various AMC theatres in Columbus (since graduation)
4. Manager at AMC West Market Plaza 7 in Akron (since September '05)
4 movies I can watch over and over:
1. BELLE DE JOUR (my favorite)
2. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (perfect audiovisual wallpaper, plus I make sure to see it anytime it's playing locally on the big screen)
3. ANNE HALL (almost certainly the movie I've seen the most- near-weekly viewings during high school kinda skew its tally though)
4. M. HULOT'S HOLIDAY (laid-back and relaxing like no other film I've seen)
4 places I've lived:
1. Akron, OH (birth through eighth grade)
2. Jackson Township, OH (outside of Canton, high school)
3. Columbus, OH (college through July 2005)
4. Suffield, OH (July 2005 to present)
4 television shows I love (decidedly comedy-heavy):
1. FREAKS AND GEEKS (my favorite)
2. MONTY PYTHON'S FLYING CIRCUS (great for sampling, and of course endlessly quotable)
3. THE OFFICE [UK version] (hilarious, sometimes uncomfortably so)
4. GOOD EATS (the only current show I watch religiously; Alton Brown is lots of fun, and is the only Food Channel personality who doesn't try too hard)
4 places I've vacationed:
1. France (spring break, junior year of high school)
2. Germany (part of OSU Men's Glee Club tour, junior year of college)
3. New York City (several times, most recently for NYFF 2005)
4. Florida (several times, most recently in January 2005)
4 of my favorite dishes (two of which I don't eat now that I'm dieting):
1. Big bowl o' Cheerios (can't start the day off right without it)
2. The White Pizza from Leonardo's in Akron, with tomatoes, bacon and ham (the ultimate comfort food from my youth, and the only pizza I've tasted yet that's as good cold as it is hot)
3. Fish'n'Chips from the Old Bag o'Nails, Columbus (another comfort food, this one more recent)
4. Cherry pie (preferably homemade with fresh cherries, but even when it's canned filling I eat it up)
4 places I'd rather be:
1. At the movies (come on, like you didn't see this coming)
2. In the Loire Valley region of France in late spring or early summer, sitting under a tree, drinking a good bottle of wine and writing (think Rohmer's CONTE D'AUTOMNE)
3. In a cavernous old library, not reading books or writing, but walking through the maze-like stacks of books or sorting through the microfiche of decades-old newspapers (another weird thing I enjoy all too infrequently)
4. In bed with Eva Green (sorry, couldn't resist)
4 books I could read over and over (twentieth-century-heavy):
1. THE LONG GOODBYE, Raymond Chandler (Chandler was a master, and this is his finest work)
2. UNCLE FRED IN THE SPRINGTIME, P.G. Wodehouse (hilarious)
3. CASINO ROYALE, Ian Fleming (deserves mention as one of the great pulpish novels)
4. IF CHINS COULD KILL, Bruce Campbell (also hilarious, and surprisingly informative about seat-of-the-pants filmmaking and the movie industry seen through the eyes of a non-A-lister)
4 albums I couldn't live without:
1. FOREVER CHANGES, Love (what else can be said)
2. BRINGING IT ALL BACK HOME, Bob Dylan (my favorite Dylan, edging out BLOOD ON THE TRACKS)
3. GIANT STEPS, John Coltrane (my favorite jazz album; Miles was more innovative and influential, but I listen to this one way more)
4. MOONDANCE, Van Morrison (a recent addition, but a worthy one, I think- darn close to perfect)
4 things I'd like to do before I die:
1. Make a feature film (like you couldn't have guessed)
2. Teach a high school course in film studies (so as to mold/warp young minds with my oddball tastes)
3. Be in an all-consuming, at times frustrating, but nonetheless emotionally- and creatively-stimulating long term relationship (have I had relationships? Yes. Have they lasted very long? No. Have they been interesting enough to write about? Meh.)
4. Live overseas (see "4 places I'd rather be", #2)
4 people I'm tagging:
1. Donna
2. Tosh
3. Jay
4. Mark
4 jobs I've had:
1. Grease merchant at McD's (high school)
2. Cancer merchant for Philip Morris (one summer during college- I was responsible for setting up displays at gas stations and the like)
3. Projectionist at various AMC theatres in Columbus (since graduation)
4. Manager at AMC West Market Plaza 7 in Akron (since September '05)
4 movies I can watch over and over:
1. BELLE DE JOUR (my favorite)
2. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (perfect audiovisual wallpaper, plus I make sure to see it anytime it's playing locally on the big screen)
3. ANNE HALL (almost certainly the movie I've seen the most- near-weekly viewings during high school kinda skew its tally though)
4. M. HULOT'S HOLIDAY (laid-back and relaxing like no other film I've seen)
4 places I've lived:
1. Akron, OH (birth through eighth grade)
2. Jackson Township, OH (outside of Canton, high school)
3. Columbus, OH (college through July 2005)
4. Suffield, OH (July 2005 to present)
4 television shows I love (decidedly comedy-heavy):
1. FREAKS AND GEEKS (my favorite)
2. MONTY PYTHON'S FLYING CIRCUS (great for sampling, and of course endlessly quotable)
3. THE OFFICE [UK version] (hilarious, sometimes uncomfortably so)
4. GOOD EATS (the only current show I watch religiously; Alton Brown is lots of fun, and is the only Food Channel personality who doesn't try too hard)
4 places I've vacationed:
1. France (spring break, junior year of high school)
2. Germany (part of OSU Men's Glee Club tour, junior year of college)
3. New York City (several times, most recently for NYFF 2005)
4. Florida (several times, most recently in January 2005)
4 of my favorite dishes (two of which I don't eat now that I'm dieting):
1. Big bowl o' Cheerios (can't start the day off right without it)
2. The White Pizza from Leonardo's in Akron, with tomatoes, bacon and ham (the ultimate comfort food from my youth, and the only pizza I've tasted yet that's as good cold as it is hot)
3. Fish'n'Chips from the Old Bag o'Nails, Columbus (another comfort food, this one more recent)
4. Cherry pie (preferably homemade with fresh cherries, but even when it's canned filling I eat it up)
4 places I'd rather be:
1. At the movies (come on, like you didn't see this coming)
2. In the Loire Valley region of France in late spring or early summer, sitting under a tree, drinking a good bottle of wine and writing (think Rohmer's CONTE D'AUTOMNE)
3. In a cavernous old library, not reading books or writing, but walking through the maze-like stacks of books or sorting through the microfiche of decades-old newspapers (another weird thing I enjoy all too infrequently)
4. In bed with Eva Green (sorry, couldn't resist)
4 books I could read over and over (twentieth-century-heavy):
1. THE LONG GOODBYE, Raymond Chandler (Chandler was a master, and this is his finest work)
2. UNCLE FRED IN THE SPRINGTIME, P.G. Wodehouse (hilarious)
3. CASINO ROYALE, Ian Fleming (deserves mention as one of the great pulpish novels)
4. IF CHINS COULD KILL, Bruce Campbell (also hilarious, and surprisingly informative about seat-of-the-pants filmmaking and the movie industry seen through the eyes of a non-A-lister)
4 albums I couldn't live without:
1. FOREVER CHANGES, Love (what else can be said)
2. BRINGING IT ALL BACK HOME, Bob Dylan (my favorite Dylan, edging out BLOOD ON THE TRACKS)
3. GIANT STEPS, John Coltrane (my favorite jazz album; Miles was more innovative and influential, but I listen to this one way more)
4. MOONDANCE, Van Morrison (a recent addition, but a worthy one, I think- darn close to perfect)
4 things I'd like to do before I die:
1. Make a feature film (like you couldn't have guessed)
2. Teach a high school course in film studies (so as to mold/warp young minds with my oddball tastes)
3. Be in an all-consuming, at times frustrating, but nonetheless emotionally- and creatively-stimulating long term relationship (have I had relationships? Yes. Have they lasted very long? No. Have they been interesting enough to write about? Meh.)
4. Live overseas (see "4 places I'd rather be", #2)
4 people I'm tagging:
1. Donna
2. Tosh
3. Jay
4. Mark
Friday, February 10, 2006
Sometimes I hate being right...
- I'm not what you might call a football fan. Back when I was living in Columbus, I'd volunteer to work during Buckeye games figuring, hey, easy money. So when it came time for my boss to schedule managers for Super Bowl Sunday, I told him I'd work during the game. "After all," says I, "it's not like anybody will come, right?" (see title of post). I figured that the theatre wouldn't be busy- I wisely scheduled a skeleton crew for this shift- but the fact is that for the 7:00 round we had around twenty customers and absolutely NOBODY came after 8 PM. Our last movie was scheduled to start at 10:15. On the off chance someone actually showed up, I threaded and started the final set of movies beginning at 9:45, sent the entire staff save one home, and then waited. And waited. Finally, a little after 10 I called my boss at home and got permission from him to close up early. Then I stopped all the movies, spliced them back into one piece, closed the business day, and went home nice and early (a little before midnight compared to my usual 12:45). Moral of the story: you can't compete with the Super Bowl, especially not in football-mad Northeast Ohio, so why even bother trying?
- Rules of the road inquiry: when is it considered acceptable to turn on one's brights? If you're driving behind someone, you're supposed to turn them off. If someone's coming toward you, you turn them off. When it's foggy out, you're not supposed to use them (since they're only good for lighting up the fog). So what's the point of having them at all? Meanwhile, I've come up with a feature that's actually practical- a device that prohibits the car from driving over a certain speed (say, 15 mph) unless the driver's seat belt is buckled. I'm not a fan of the seat belt laws, not because I don't think it's a good idea to wear seat belts, but because it makes more sense to me as a public health issue than a legal one. So by combining an effective ad campaign (bring back "Blood on the Pavement"!) with safety measures such as this one, the legal angle would become redundant, which it sort of already is anyway, since a cop can't pull you over just because you're not wearing your seat belt. It's only enforceable as a rider ticket on top of some other violation.
- SYMBIOPSYCHOTAXIPLASM: TAKE ONE (1968, William Greaves, seen in theatre) - sweeeeeeeeeeet. What this guy (scroll down) said, pretty much. What's most impressive to me is how cleverly the circles-within-circles construction is executed here, while never seeming pleased with itself. Offhand ingenuity is so much more charming than the smarmy, self-impressed variant. Rating: ***1/2.
- Rules of the road inquiry: when is it considered acceptable to turn on one's brights? If you're driving behind someone, you're supposed to turn them off. If someone's coming toward you, you turn them off. When it's foggy out, you're not supposed to use them (since they're only good for lighting up the fog). So what's the point of having them at all? Meanwhile, I've come up with a feature that's actually practical- a device that prohibits the car from driving over a certain speed (say, 15 mph) unless the driver's seat belt is buckled. I'm not a fan of the seat belt laws, not because I don't think it's a good idea to wear seat belts, but because it makes more sense to me as a public health issue than a legal one. So by combining an effective ad campaign (bring back "Blood on the Pavement"!) with safety measures such as this one, the legal angle would become redundant, which it sort of already is anyway, since a cop can't pull you over just because you're not wearing your seat belt. It's only enforceable as a rider ticket on top of some other violation.
- SYMBIOPSYCHOTAXIPLASM: TAKE ONE (1968, William Greaves, seen in theatre) - sweeeeeeeeeeet. What this guy (scroll down) said, pretty much. What's most impressive to me is how cleverly the circles-within-circles construction is executed here, while never seeming pleased with itself. Offhand ingenuity is so much more charming than the smarmy, self-impressed variant. Rating: ***1/2.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Seeking advice, etc.
- So I've had some trouble lately with a guy who keeps calling about his job application. While I normally might think it a welcome change that anyone actually WANTS to work at my theatre, the truth is that this guy has been calling roughly every other day for the past couple of weeks, and I'm getting really sick of it. If a prospective employee calls once to follow up, it's fine- he's interested in the job, nothing wrong with that. If someone calls twice, no sweat- he's just following up. If he calls more than half a dozen times, then it's crossed the line from tenacity to outright badgering. So here's my question- how do I make him go away? How do I say, "because you won't leave us the hell alone you've made every single manager here sick of you and there's no way in hell we'll ever hire you now" in a way that lets him down easy while still conveying the point? He's a high school kid, and doesn't seem terribly bright (to wit: in the "county" space on his application he wrote "USA"), so I don't think he means to be annoying, but if I never speak to him again I will be happier for it. So? Thoughts?
- Random observation: why do radio station use deejays' faces in their advertising? Makes no sense to me. This is radio, guys- what does it matter what they look like? Do you think people actually pass billboards advertising their programs and say, "wow, that guy looks pretty cool- I should listen to him." I doubt it, since the two have absolutely nothing in common. I know, they're supposed to be "personalities," but it still seems pretty stupid to me.
- I'm looking for a second job to supplement my income. I still plan on working my five shifts a week at the theatre, but another twenty hours of work on top of that could only help my financially.
- Spelling follies: a local bar advertising karaoke night spelled it "kaerokee". It's been that way for months now. Has nobody mentioned it to them, or would that be construed as intellectual elitism?
- Captain Obvious, Rock'n'Roll Critic: "Bringing It All Back Home" might be on my as-yet-undetermined Desert Island Album List. Much as I love all Dylan's classics, I think this one might be the best in a listen-through sense (as opposed to a skip-around-to-the-classic-tracks sense). It's impossible to listen to "Subterranean Homesick Blues" without picturing Dylan holding cue cards, and other greats such as "Mr. Tambourine Man" and "It's Alright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)" still work their magic. I desperately want to use "Gates of Eden" in a movie, and I think I found a project of mine where it fits. Finally, "Bob Dylan's 115th Dream" may very well be the funniest song ever written. Even Bob himself found it hilarious (I love that they kept his laughing on the album), and who am I to say it isn't?
- A second viewing of THE NEW WORLD confirmed its transcendental fawsomeness in my mind. When I write my addendum to my top 100, expect it to be present.
- OR [MY TREASURE] (2004, Keren Yedaya, seen on DVD)- I mostly tuned out of this when I noticed that it was in the by-now-clichéd static-camera master-shot style that has become so prevalent in world cinema today. Sure, the film makes some valid points about the limited roles for women in Israeli society, but Yedaya's style (anti-style?) felt uninspired to me- planting a camera and saying "action" isn't always the right way to go in my opinion, and if you do choose to go that way, do something interesting instead of simply having the actors walk in and out of the frame (almost as much of a cliché as the static camera itself). Also becomes a bit of a wallow after a while- mother Ruthie (2002 Coveted Opal Award winner Ronit Elkabetz, Late Marriage) is sick and frankly looks like crap but she still wears miniskirts and walks the streets, and Or (Dana Ivgy) ends up quitting school and becoming a prostitute like her mom. By the time the film ended on Or's "won't you please help" pleading look directly into the camera, I was ready to shrug this movie off, which I don't think was Yedaya's intention. Rating: *1/2.
- Random observation: why do radio station use deejays' faces in their advertising? Makes no sense to me. This is radio, guys- what does it matter what they look like? Do you think people actually pass billboards advertising their programs and say, "wow, that guy looks pretty cool- I should listen to him." I doubt it, since the two have absolutely nothing in common. I know, they're supposed to be "personalities," but it still seems pretty stupid to me.
- I'm looking for a second job to supplement my income. I still plan on working my five shifts a week at the theatre, but another twenty hours of work on top of that could only help my financially.
- Spelling follies: a local bar advertising karaoke night spelled it "kaerokee". It's been that way for months now. Has nobody mentioned it to them, or would that be construed as intellectual elitism?
- Captain Obvious, Rock'n'Roll Critic: "Bringing It All Back Home" might be on my as-yet-undetermined Desert Island Album List. Much as I love all Dylan's classics, I think this one might be the best in a listen-through sense (as opposed to a skip-around-to-the-classic-tracks sense). It's impossible to listen to "Subterranean Homesick Blues" without picturing Dylan holding cue cards, and other greats such as "Mr. Tambourine Man" and "It's Alright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)" still work their magic. I desperately want to use "Gates of Eden" in a movie, and I think I found a project of mine where it fits. Finally, "Bob Dylan's 115th Dream" may very well be the funniest song ever written. Even Bob himself found it hilarious (I love that they kept his laughing on the album), and who am I to say it isn't?
- A second viewing of THE NEW WORLD confirmed its transcendental fawsomeness in my mind. When I write my addendum to my top 100, expect it to be present.
- OR [MY TREASURE] (2004, Keren Yedaya, seen on DVD)- I mostly tuned out of this when I noticed that it was in the by-now-clichéd static-camera master-shot style that has become so prevalent in world cinema today. Sure, the film makes some valid points about the limited roles for women in Israeli society, but Yedaya's style (anti-style?) felt uninspired to me- planting a camera and saying "action" isn't always the right way to go in my opinion, and if you do choose to go that way, do something interesting instead of simply having the actors walk in and out of the frame (almost as much of a cliché as the static camera itself). Also becomes a bit of a wallow after a while- mother Ruthie (2002 Coveted Opal Award winner Ronit Elkabetz, Late Marriage) is sick and frankly looks like crap but she still wears miniskirts and walks the streets, and Or (Dana Ivgy) ends up quitting school and becoming a prostitute like her mom. By the time the film ended on Or's "won't you please help" pleading look directly into the camera, I was ready to shrug this movie off, which I don't think was Yedaya's intention. Rating: *1/2.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Untitled 1
TELL THEM WHO YOU ARE (2004, Mark S. Wexler, seen on DVD)- sort of works as a companion piece with 2003's MY ARCHITECT, as both docs combine examinations of inimitable artists with first-person perspectives on the artists by their sons. The major difference is that while Kahn senior was dead and MY ARCHITECT was mostly his son investigating his dad's past, Haskell Wexler is still very much alive, and being a seasoned and highly outspoken filmmaker, he wants to have some say in how the film is made. Or is it all an act? More than one of the talking-heads rounded up by Mark Wexler state how difficult it can be for someone who is acting all the time to let down his guard, and one gets the impression that Haskell could just as easily be putting on a show for his son (this is borne out by his taking Mark to a meeting with a group of Cuban ambassadors, which Mark wants no part of considering it could jeopardize his new project working with President Bush). My biggest objection to the film isn't Haskell's ongoing attempts to wrangle control of the film from his son (which are pretty interesting) but rather that the final product feels sort of formless. Just when Mark seems to be probing deeper into his dad's life, he'll digress again and talk to others about his work as a cinematographer. Sometimes all the pieces come together (as when he examines his and his father's relationship with Conrad L. and Conrad W. Hall), but just as often Mark backs off from a point just when it's beginning to show promise (Haskell's lefty politics are never quite integrated into the film except as contrast to Mark's conservatism). Perhaps it's a case of being too close to the subject? And how will this play to, say, the two Walk of Fame tourists who don't know who Haskell Wexler is? Rating: **.
THE MATADOR (2005, Richard Shepherd, seen in theatre)- much more engaging than its synopsis might indicate. The highlight of the film is the dynamic between Brosnan (never looser or funnier) and reliably shlubby Kinnear- playing a hitman and a salesman, respectively- and Shepherd's jazzy direction wisely never gets in the way of it (kudos, also, to Hope Davis, who never allows Bean to become a standard-issue concerned wife). I also enjoyed the chronology of the film, which saves until the climax a key scene which is revealed to be the linchpin of their friendship. In the end, each of these men is called upon to preserve the self-image of the other in a time of crisis (more I shall not say). Could have been one of the year's best with a punchier ending, but nonetheless a pleasure throughout. Also, does anybody know the punchline to Brosnan's midget joke? Rating: ***.
NO DIRECTION HOME: BOB DYLAN (2005, Martin Scorsese, seen on DVD)- Dylan is one of the key cultural figures of the late 20th century, largely because of his career between 1960 and 1966, which is the focus of this film. This doc is largely a found-footage and talking-heads affair, but the footage (including work by Jonas Mekas, Murray Lerner, and of course D.A. Pennebaker) and the heads (such Joan Baez, Pete Seeger, Allen Ginsberg, Peter Yarrow, and Dylan himself) are impeccably chosen, which allows the film to rise above most of its kind. Years from now, when a kid asks you what Bob Dylan was about, this will be the film to show them. Rating: ***.
GOOD MORNING, NIGHT (2003, Marco Bellocchio, seen on DVD)- my first exposure to Bellocchio, a true-crime story of the kidnapping and killing of former Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro by a group of left-wing activists of the Red Brigade, is compulsively watchable and often fascinating. Much of the action takes place in the apartment where Moro is held, and the central character and audience surrogate is Chiara (Maya Sansa), the only woman in the apartment, who keeps up a front for the group by working a day job. She seems to stand outside the rest of the group (for example, she doesn't take place in the kidnapping), and her moral ambiguity is the film's also. While there are moments of suspense (the elevator scene, which was used for the Italian trailer, is a highlight), the film isn't a thriller, and indeed the true-crime nature of the story makes the final ten minutes of the film feel inevitable, and robs the ending of some of its potential power. Still, I'm curious to see more of Bellocchio's films. Rating: ***.
SEX IS COMEDY (2002, Catherine Breillat, seen on DVD)- films about filmmaking aren't really my thing- they tend to reek of navel-gazing wankery, for the most part, and the last thing Breillat needs is yet another excuse for navel-gazing. This film is a fictionalized re-creation of her experiences making FAT GIRL, or at least a couple of scenes in FAT GIRL, since the titular overweight female is nowhere to be seen here. Instead, most of Breillat's story here deals with her relationship with the preening male lead, who jokes around with the crew but can't turn on that charm when the camera is on him. Anne Parillaud is clearly enjoying herself as the Breillat surrogate, but the film lacks a compelling reason for being, unless Breillat's thoughts on love, sex, penises, nude scenes, and the like do it for you. Might have had some interest had Breillat focused on the shooting of one scene in particular, but since it shows her shooting several different scenes there's no real depth about any of them. There is some to-do about the actor (Gregoire Colin) wearing a prosthetic member for the film's sex scene, which I suppose is where the comedy of the title comes into play, but the film doesn't really do anything with that either. Note: perhaps if Breillat wants to really stretch, she could try writing a screenplay that doesn't contain the word "detest," which she tends to REALLY overuse. Rating: *1/2.
THE MATADOR (2005, Richard Shepherd, seen in theatre)- much more engaging than its synopsis might indicate. The highlight of the film is the dynamic between Brosnan (never looser or funnier) and reliably shlubby Kinnear- playing a hitman and a salesman, respectively- and Shepherd's jazzy direction wisely never gets in the way of it (kudos, also, to Hope Davis, who never allows Bean to become a standard-issue concerned wife). I also enjoyed the chronology of the film, which saves until the climax a key scene which is revealed to be the linchpin of their friendship. In the end, each of these men is called upon to preserve the self-image of the other in a time of crisis (more I shall not say). Could have been one of the year's best with a punchier ending, but nonetheless a pleasure throughout. Also, does anybody know the punchline to Brosnan's midget joke? Rating: ***.
NO DIRECTION HOME: BOB DYLAN (2005, Martin Scorsese, seen on DVD)- Dylan is one of the key cultural figures of the late 20th century, largely because of his career between 1960 and 1966, which is the focus of this film. This doc is largely a found-footage and talking-heads affair, but the footage (including work by Jonas Mekas, Murray Lerner, and of course D.A. Pennebaker) and the heads (such Joan Baez, Pete Seeger, Allen Ginsberg, Peter Yarrow, and Dylan himself) are impeccably chosen, which allows the film to rise above most of its kind. Years from now, when a kid asks you what Bob Dylan was about, this will be the film to show them. Rating: ***.
GOOD MORNING, NIGHT (2003, Marco Bellocchio, seen on DVD)- my first exposure to Bellocchio, a true-crime story of the kidnapping and killing of former Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro by a group of left-wing activists of the Red Brigade, is compulsively watchable and often fascinating. Much of the action takes place in the apartment where Moro is held, and the central character and audience surrogate is Chiara (Maya Sansa), the only woman in the apartment, who keeps up a front for the group by working a day job. She seems to stand outside the rest of the group (for example, she doesn't take place in the kidnapping), and her moral ambiguity is the film's also. While there are moments of suspense (the elevator scene, which was used for the Italian trailer, is a highlight), the film isn't a thriller, and indeed the true-crime nature of the story makes the final ten minutes of the film feel inevitable, and robs the ending of some of its potential power. Still, I'm curious to see more of Bellocchio's films. Rating: ***.
SEX IS COMEDY (2002, Catherine Breillat, seen on DVD)- films about filmmaking aren't really my thing- they tend to reek of navel-gazing wankery, for the most part, and the last thing Breillat needs is yet another excuse for navel-gazing. This film is a fictionalized re-creation of her experiences making FAT GIRL, or at least a couple of scenes in FAT GIRL, since the titular overweight female is nowhere to be seen here. Instead, most of Breillat's story here deals with her relationship with the preening male lead, who jokes around with the crew but can't turn on that charm when the camera is on him. Anne Parillaud is clearly enjoying herself as the Breillat surrogate, but the film lacks a compelling reason for being, unless Breillat's thoughts on love, sex, penises, nude scenes, and the like do it for you. Might have had some interest had Breillat focused on the shooting of one scene in particular, but since it shows her shooting several different scenes there's no real depth about any of them. There is some to-do about the actor (Gregoire Colin) wearing a prosthetic member for the film's sex scene, which I suppose is where the comedy of the title comes into play, but the film doesn't really do anything with that either. Note: perhaps if Breillat wants to really stretch, she could try writing a screenplay that doesn't contain the word "detest," which she tends to REALLY overuse. Rating: *1/2.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Oscar nominations
The only real surprise is that there aren't any real surprises. MUNICH got in after all, which tells me something political is in the air out in Hollywood- something that says we need to address serious worldly issues instead of worrying about crowd-pleasing hits. Oh man, are the conservative pundits going to have a field day...
Hey, I just noticed... One awesome surprise is that "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" got a best song nomination. Not that it's that great a song ("Whoop That Trick" is much cooler), but it's still pretty awesome that they went for it. Hope Terrence wears his wife-beater and DJay pendant when he's onstage.
BEST PICTURE
Brokeback Mountain
Capote
Crash
Good Night, and Good Luck
Munich
My thoughts: Guess it didn't matter that MUNICH wasn't a big hit, or that it wasn't as huggable as Spielberg's previous Oscar-nominated films. Maybe they just realized that WALK THE LINE, music and performances aside, just wasn't anything special.
BEST DIRECTOR
George Clooney, Good Night, and Good Luck
Paul Haggis, Crash
Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain
Bennett Miller, Capote
Steven Spielberg, Munich
My thoughts: Wow, how creative- all five best picture nominees also got nominated here. No "critic's choice" shout-out like we've had pretty much every year for the past decade. Were they even trying? Also, I really wish people would stop saying that CAPOTE is a debut. Bennett Miller directed a documentary called THE CRUISE in 1998. Sure, it's not a respectable Hollywood movie, but it doesn't matter- he's made a feature before CAPOTE, so stop acting as though he didn't. And hey, I called the Spielberg picture/director combo- just not, ya know, officially.
BEST ACTOR
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote
Terrence Howard, Hustle and Flow
Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain
Joaquin Phoenix, Walk the Line
David Strathairn, Good Night, and Good Luck
My thoughts: Just because I didn't predict Howard here doesn't mean I didn't have a good idea he'd make it. The guy's been out there, making the rounds, pressing the flesh, showing up in magazines and the like. And it's worked. Crowe didn't really do this, so he's out. My Daniels prediction was as much an attempt to shake things up as anything else. I hate predicting cookie-cutter nominations, but the voters don't seem to mind them at all. At least Howard got nominated for the right movie.
BEST ACTRESS
Dame Judi Dench, Mrs. Henderson Presents
Felicity Huffman, TransAmerica
Keira Knightley, Pride & Prejudice
Charlize Theron, North Country
Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line
My thoughts: So they went with Charlize. Whoopdie frickin' doo. At least I called Keira. And yeah, Allen was a long shot (early release, low on precursors), but again, couldn't bore myself with obvious picks.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
George Clooney, Syriana
Matt Dillon, Crash
Paul Giamatti, Cinderella Man
Jake Gyllenhaal, Brokeback Mountain
William Hurt, A History of Violence
My thoughts: Good job Academy only giving CRASH one nomination. Good job Hurt (and the hype-sters) on getting the Beatrice Straight Award for memorable acting in five minutes. I love the movie, but I thought Harris was worthier than Hurt. But that's just me.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams, Junebug
Catherine Keener, Capote
Frances McDormand, North Country
Rachel Weisz, The Constant Gardener
Michelle Williams, Brokeback Mountain
My thoughts: Looks like the early screeners for JUNEBUG did the trick- voters received DVDs back in November for it, and they got to watch them early before the others rolled in, for a movie that might otherwise be consigned to the bottom of the stack. Smart thinking, guys. In other news, McDormand gets nominated for supporting a lead actress nominee (and, admittedly, for playing a very bait-y role). And what does Maria Bello have to do to get recognized here? Hurt turns up for five minutes and gets in, while Bello gives one of the year's most searing performances and she stays home? Was it the 69 scene, guys? Was it the cheerleader getup?
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Crash
Good Night, and Good Luck
Match Point
The Squid and the Whale
Syriana
My thoughts: Hey, look at me predict them all. I'd feel prouder if this category wasn't so easy to predict.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Brokeback Mountain
Capote
The Constant Gardener
A History of Violence
Munich
My thoughts: Once again, an easy 5 for 5.
More analysis/armchair quarterbacking to come, probably.
Hey, I just noticed... One awesome surprise is that "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" got a best song nomination. Not that it's that great a song ("Whoop That Trick" is much cooler), but it's still pretty awesome that they went for it. Hope Terrence wears his wife-beater and DJay pendant when he's onstage.
BEST PICTURE
Brokeback Mountain
Capote
Crash
Good Night, and Good Luck
Munich
My thoughts: Guess it didn't matter that MUNICH wasn't a big hit, or that it wasn't as huggable as Spielberg's previous Oscar-nominated films. Maybe they just realized that WALK THE LINE, music and performances aside, just wasn't anything special.
BEST DIRECTOR
George Clooney, Good Night, and Good Luck
Paul Haggis, Crash
Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain
Bennett Miller, Capote
Steven Spielberg, Munich
My thoughts: Wow, how creative- all five best picture nominees also got nominated here. No "critic's choice" shout-out like we've had pretty much every year for the past decade. Were they even trying? Also, I really wish people would stop saying that CAPOTE is a debut. Bennett Miller directed a documentary called THE CRUISE in 1998. Sure, it's not a respectable Hollywood movie, but it doesn't matter- he's made a feature before CAPOTE, so stop acting as though he didn't. And hey, I called the Spielberg picture/director combo- just not, ya know, officially.
BEST ACTOR
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote
Terrence Howard, Hustle and Flow
Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain
Joaquin Phoenix, Walk the Line
David Strathairn, Good Night, and Good Luck
My thoughts: Just because I didn't predict Howard here doesn't mean I didn't have a good idea he'd make it. The guy's been out there, making the rounds, pressing the flesh, showing up in magazines and the like. And it's worked. Crowe didn't really do this, so he's out. My Daniels prediction was as much an attempt to shake things up as anything else. I hate predicting cookie-cutter nominations, but the voters don't seem to mind them at all. At least Howard got nominated for the right movie.
BEST ACTRESS
Dame Judi Dench, Mrs. Henderson Presents
Felicity Huffman, TransAmerica
Keira Knightley, Pride & Prejudice
Charlize Theron, North Country
Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line
My thoughts: So they went with Charlize. Whoopdie frickin' doo. At least I called Keira. And yeah, Allen was a long shot (early release, low on precursors), but again, couldn't bore myself with obvious picks.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
George Clooney, Syriana
Matt Dillon, Crash
Paul Giamatti, Cinderella Man
Jake Gyllenhaal, Brokeback Mountain
William Hurt, A History of Violence
My thoughts: Good job Academy only giving CRASH one nomination. Good job Hurt (and the hype-sters) on getting the Beatrice Straight Award for memorable acting in five minutes. I love the movie, but I thought Harris was worthier than Hurt. But that's just me.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams, Junebug
Catherine Keener, Capote
Frances McDormand, North Country
Rachel Weisz, The Constant Gardener
Michelle Williams, Brokeback Mountain
My thoughts: Looks like the early screeners for JUNEBUG did the trick- voters received DVDs back in November for it, and they got to watch them early before the others rolled in, for a movie that might otherwise be consigned to the bottom of the stack. Smart thinking, guys. In other news, McDormand gets nominated for supporting a lead actress nominee (and, admittedly, for playing a very bait-y role). And what does Maria Bello have to do to get recognized here? Hurt turns up for five minutes and gets in, while Bello gives one of the year's most searing performances and she stays home? Was it the 69 scene, guys? Was it the cheerleader getup?
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Crash
Good Night, and Good Luck
Match Point
The Squid and the Whale
Syriana
My thoughts: Hey, look at me predict them all. I'd feel prouder if this category wasn't so easy to predict.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Brokeback Mountain
Capote
The Constant Gardener
A History of Violence
Munich
My thoughts: Once again, an easy 5 for 5.
More analysis/armchair quarterbacking to come, probably.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Oscar nomination predictions
Well, I actually intend to get up around 8 AM tomorrow, which is pretty unheard of for me, but I always like to watch the Oscar nominations get announced and then write about them on the blog. As such, I figured it would be good to put my predictions up, to serve as more grist for tomorrow's piece. Nothing like waiting until the last minute. I included a few "surprise" nominations, mostly because they always seem to have a few. If they always went for the obvious then they'd be the BFCS, and there'd be no need to predict.
The predictions are in order of how sure I am they'll be nominated.
BEST PICTURE
Brokeback Mountain
Good Night, and Good Luck
Crash
Walk the Line
Capote
My thoughts: 1996 redux! Modestly-budgeted critics' faves dominate in the absence of world-beating Hollywood fare. WALK THE LINE makes it, since it's a crowd-pleaser, but how much love is it getting? I honestly can't see what might sneak in... A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE? Awesome as it is, it's "edgier" than they go for, even in a year like this.
Where's Munich?: If the movie was a bigger hit, I'd include it here, but it's not doing especially well at the box office. Also, it's not a very huggable movie- BROKEBACK may be controversial, but it's also a movie fans can embrace emotionally, whereas MUNICH fans are more apt to engage with that film in a political or intellectual way, or to groove on the Spielberginess of it, Armond White-style. The Academy only recognizes a Spielberg movie when it's a mainstream AND critical success. Another thing is that it's not an actor's movie- considering most of the AMPAS is comprised of actors, that's a problem. Plus Spielberg already has three Oscars as well as an honorary, so he isn't exactly overdue.
BEST DIRECTOR
Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain
George Clooney, Good Night, and Good Luck
Paul Haggis, Crash
David Cronenberg, A History of Violence
Peter Jackson, King Kong
My thoughts: Lee and Clooney are the only real locks here (look for a possible Clooney upset for director come Oscar night). Haggis could fall by the wayside if the film is perceived as primarily an actors' showcase (much like AS GOOD AS IT GETS in 1997), and if this happens I can see Bennett Miller getting bumped up for CAPOTE. Cronenberg is in the critics'-fave spot previously occupied by Lynch (MULHOLLAND DR.), Almodovar (TALK TO HER), Meirelles (CITY OF GOD), and Leigh (VERA DRAKE), although I can see Allen possibly taking the spot too- though without a Weinstein behind him a la BULLETS OVER BROADWAY it'll be tough. Jackson is an out-of-nowhere prediction- they clearly like the guy, and KONG is an ambitious epic production that was miles better than it had any right to be. When they choose two non-best-picture nominees in this category, the second tends to be more mainstream. Spielberg only gets in if MUNICH gets picture, and I don't see that happening (see above); likewise, Mangold contents himself with a best picture nod. Although if they'll nominate Peter (THE FULL MONTY) Cattaneo anything's possible...
BEST ACTOR
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote
Joaquin Phoenix, Walk the Line
Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain
David Strathairn, Good Night, and Good Luck
Jeff Daniels, The Squid and the Whale
My thoughts: Hoffman has it sewn up, barring a late minute surge by Ledger (star of the best pic frontrunner) or Phoenix (the only previous nominee in the bunch, and who could possibly be a safe, "straight" choice for older voters). Strathairn makes it on the GOOD NIGHT groundswell, although he could pull a Giamatti and end up staying home, since Murrow isn't an especially deep or show-offy role. Crowe and Howard are possiblities, but Crowe may still be seen by many as a phone-throwing thug (who already has gotten plenty of Oscar love) and Howard is playing a pimp/rapper (Eminem's best song win in '02 aside, are they ready for rap?). I predict Daniels (despite category fraud) for being hilarious and for making the most of a quasi-comeback role, although he would be a surer thing if he had a studio with a proven Oscar track record behind him, instead of Samuel Goldwyn films.
BEST ACTRESS
Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line
Felicity Huffman, TransAmerica
Dame Judi Dench, Mrs. Henderson Presents
Keira Knightley, Pride & Prejudice
Joan Allen, The Upside of Anger
My thoughts: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz... so many good female performances this past year, and none of them are listed above. Anyway... Reese, Felicity and the Dame are in, given their dominance of the critics' and guild awards thusfar. It gets tricky after that, but even then it's not all that interesting. I'm getting Knightley gets the PYT nod over Zhang Ziyi, since in the clips I've seen of MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA I've yet to see anything from Zhang that would justify anything but a nomination for Best Art Direction. And this category is typically friendly to previous nominees and comedic performances, and Allen fits in both aspects. Charlize Theron could make it instead, but NORTH COUNTRY didn't make much of a dent in the public consciousness. Still, you never know.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Paul Giamatti, Cinderella Man
George Clooney, Syriana
Matt Dillon, Crash
Jake Gyllenhaal, Brokeback Mountain
Terrence Howard, Crash
My thoughts: Some have predicted Gyllenhaal to get snubbed here, but I don't think so- I say he rides BROKEBACK's frontrunner status to a nod here. Giamatti and Clooney are givens- the former as a consolation prize for last year, the latter as a "best in show" for SYRIANA as well as an attaboy for a good year all around. And I'd have to say Dillon's pretty safe too, since he tends to get singled out from the CRASH cast for his performance. Howard gets singled out quite a bit, though he's here just as much for HUSTLE AND FLOW as for the Haggis film. Although I can see anyone from Bob Hoskins (MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS) to William Hurt (A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE) to Donald Sutherland (PRIDE & PREJUDICE) sneaking in there. Why didn't they campaign Jeff Daniels in this category? He could've cleaned up.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Michelle Williams, Brokeback Mountain
Rachel Weisz, The Constant Gardener
Catherine Keener, Capote
Maria Bello, A History of Violence
Thandie Newton, Crash
My thoughts: One thing to remember with the supporting actress category is that voters tend to favor supporting female turns that "support" another nominate-able performance, so this category is heavy with nominations for films that feature multiple Oscar-worthy actors. Who benefits here? Williams has critical plaudits and showy scenes in her favor, but Keener's role is much more low-key (not usually the Academy's thing), so playing a real person in a movie that stars the best actor front-runner is of great help. Newton also benefits (I hate to call it "coattailing") since she gives the most notable female performance in an actor- and Oscar-friendly film, despite a lack of previous awards this season. Weisz and Bello (along with Williams) have garnered much of the critical attention of late, squeezing out Amy Adams, whose film might be judged too small, and whose performance might be seen as the film's whole raison d'etre, to make the cut here. Frances McDormand could always get nominated for NORTH COUNTRY (she has a history with the Academy, after all), but unless Theron gets a best actress nod I don't see it happening.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Crash
Good Night, and Good Luck
Match Point
The Squid and the Whale
Syriana
My thoughts: CRASH and GOOD NIGHT make it on the virtue of being best picture nominees, and MATCH POINT gets in for being Academy-fave Woody Allen's "comeback" effort. SQUID has gotten the lion's share of critics' awards, which means more in this category than it would in one of the higher-profile ones. SYRIANA seems the tenuous of the lot, given the 11th-hour category switcheroo ruling- who knows how many adapted screenplay votes got invalidated as a result? If SYRIANA suffers, expect CINDERELLA MAN or (wouldn't this be awesome) THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN to step into its place.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Brokeback Mountain
Capote
Munich
A History of Violence
The Constant Gardener
My thoughts: The Academy likes when acclaimed authors write screenplays (Arthur Miller, anyone? John Irving?), so BROKEBACK (Larry McMurtry) and MUNICH (Tony Kushner) ought to get nominated on that basis alone. Likewise, CAPOTE gets the nod to match its best picture nomination, and HISTORY OF VIOLENCE its best director. Finally, THE CONSTANT GARDENER steps into SYRIANA's spot as the political, convoluted liberal-guilt offering in the category (although I like both films a great deal, which doesn't hurt). If the writers wish to go another way, there's always PRIDE & PREJUDICE, which distilled the classic novel into a workable two hours, although much of the attention has been given to the direction and performances rather than the adaptation. Beyond that, I just don't know...
How will I do? Tune in tomorrow and see!
The predictions are in order of how sure I am they'll be nominated.
BEST PICTURE
Brokeback Mountain
Good Night, and Good Luck
Crash
Walk the Line
Capote
My thoughts: 1996 redux! Modestly-budgeted critics' faves dominate in the absence of world-beating Hollywood fare. WALK THE LINE makes it, since it's a crowd-pleaser, but how much love is it getting? I honestly can't see what might sneak in... A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE? Awesome as it is, it's "edgier" than they go for, even in a year like this.
Where's Munich?: If the movie was a bigger hit, I'd include it here, but it's not doing especially well at the box office. Also, it's not a very huggable movie- BROKEBACK may be controversial, but it's also a movie fans can embrace emotionally, whereas MUNICH fans are more apt to engage with that film in a political or intellectual way, or to groove on the Spielberginess of it, Armond White-style. The Academy only recognizes a Spielberg movie when it's a mainstream AND critical success. Another thing is that it's not an actor's movie- considering most of the AMPAS is comprised of actors, that's a problem. Plus Spielberg already has three Oscars as well as an honorary, so he isn't exactly overdue.
BEST DIRECTOR
Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain
George Clooney, Good Night, and Good Luck
Paul Haggis, Crash
David Cronenberg, A History of Violence
Peter Jackson, King Kong
My thoughts: Lee and Clooney are the only real locks here (look for a possible Clooney upset for director come Oscar night). Haggis could fall by the wayside if the film is perceived as primarily an actors' showcase (much like AS GOOD AS IT GETS in 1997), and if this happens I can see Bennett Miller getting bumped up for CAPOTE. Cronenberg is in the critics'-fave spot previously occupied by Lynch (MULHOLLAND DR.), Almodovar (TALK TO HER), Meirelles (CITY OF GOD), and Leigh (VERA DRAKE), although I can see Allen possibly taking the spot too- though without a Weinstein behind him a la BULLETS OVER BROADWAY it'll be tough. Jackson is an out-of-nowhere prediction- they clearly like the guy, and KONG is an ambitious epic production that was miles better than it had any right to be. When they choose two non-best-picture nominees in this category, the second tends to be more mainstream. Spielberg only gets in if MUNICH gets picture, and I don't see that happening (see above); likewise, Mangold contents himself with a best picture nod. Although if they'll nominate Peter (THE FULL MONTY) Cattaneo anything's possible...
BEST ACTOR
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote
Joaquin Phoenix, Walk the Line
Heath Ledger, Brokeback Mountain
David Strathairn, Good Night, and Good Luck
Jeff Daniels, The Squid and the Whale
My thoughts: Hoffman has it sewn up, barring a late minute surge by Ledger (star of the best pic frontrunner) or Phoenix (the only previous nominee in the bunch, and who could possibly be a safe, "straight" choice for older voters). Strathairn makes it on the GOOD NIGHT groundswell, although he could pull a Giamatti and end up staying home, since Murrow isn't an especially deep or show-offy role. Crowe and Howard are possiblities, but Crowe may still be seen by many as a phone-throwing thug (who already has gotten plenty of Oscar love) and Howard is playing a pimp/rapper (Eminem's best song win in '02 aside, are they ready for rap?). I predict Daniels (despite category fraud) for being hilarious and for making the most of a quasi-comeback role, although he would be a surer thing if he had a studio with a proven Oscar track record behind him, instead of Samuel Goldwyn films.
BEST ACTRESS
Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line
Felicity Huffman, TransAmerica
Dame Judi Dench, Mrs. Henderson Presents
Keira Knightley, Pride & Prejudice
Joan Allen, The Upside of Anger
My thoughts: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz... so many good female performances this past year, and none of them are listed above. Anyway... Reese, Felicity and the Dame are in, given their dominance of the critics' and guild awards thusfar. It gets tricky after that, but even then it's not all that interesting. I'm getting Knightley gets the PYT nod over Zhang Ziyi, since in the clips I've seen of MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA I've yet to see anything from Zhang that would justify anything but a nomination for Best Art Direction. And this category is typically friendly to previous nominees and comedic performances, and Allen fits in both aspects. Charlize Theron could make it instead, but NORTH COUNTRY didn't make much of a dent in the public consciousness. Still, you never know.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Paul Giamatti, Cinderella Man
George Clooney, Syriana
Matt Dillon, Crash
Jake Gyllenhaal, Brokeback Mountain
Terrence Howard, Crash
My thoughts: Some have predicted Gyllenhaal to get snubbed here, but I don't think so- I say he rides BROKEBACK's frontrunner status to a nod here. Giamatti and Clooney are givens- the former as a consolation prize for last year, the latter as a "best in show" for SYRIANA as well as an attaboy for a good year all around. And I'd have to say Dillon's pretty safe too, since he tends to get singled out from the CRASH cast for his performance. Howard gets singled out quite a bit, though he's here just as much for HUSTLE AND FLOW as for the Haggis film. Although I can see anyone from Bob Hoskins (MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS) to William Hurt (A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE) to Donald Sutherland (PRIDE & PREJUDICE) sneaking in there. Why didn't they campaign Jeff Daniels in this category? He could've cleaned up.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Michelle Williams, Brokeback Mountain
Rachel Weisz, The Constant Gardener
Catherine Keener, Capote
Maria Bello, A History of Violence
Thandie Newton, Crash
My thoughts: One thing to remember with the supporting actress category is that voters tend to favor supporting female turns that "support" another nominate-able performance, so this category is heavy with nominations for films that feature multiple Oscar-worthy actors. Who benefits here? Williams has critical plaudits and showy scenes in her favor, but Keener's role is much more low-key (not usually the Academy's thing), so playing a real person in a movie that stars the best actor front-runner is of great help. Newton also benefits (I hate to call it "coattailing") since she gives the most notable female performance in an actor- and Oscar-friendly film, despite a lack of previous awards this season. Weisz and Bello (along with Williams) have garnered much of the critical attention of late, squeezing out Amy Adams, whose film might be judged too small, and whose performance might be seen as the film's whole raison d'etre, to make the cut here. Frances McDormand could always get nominated for NORTH COUNTRY (she has a history with the Academy, after all), but unless Theron gets a best actress nod I don't see it happening.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Crash
Good Night, and Good Luck
Match Point
The Squid and the Whale
Syriana
My thoughts: CRASH and GOOD NIGHT make it on the virtue of being best picture nominees, and MATCH POINT gets in for being Academy-fave Woody Allen's "comeback" effort. SQUID has gotten the lion's share of critics' awards, which means more in this category than it would in one of the higher-profile ones. SYRIANA seems the tenuous of the lot, given the 11th-hour category switcheroo ruling- who knows how many adapted screenplay votes got invalidated as a result? If SYRIANA suffers, expect CINDERELLA MAN or (wouldn't this be awesome) THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN to step into its place.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Brokeback Mountain
Capote
Munich
A History of Violence
The Constant Gardener
My thoughts: The Academy likes when acclaimed authors write screenplays (Arthur Miller, anyone? John Irving?), so BROKEBACK (Larry McMurtry) and MUNICH (Tony Kushner) ought to get nominated on that basis alone. Likewise, CAPOTE gets the nod to match its best picture nomination, and HISTORY OF VIOLENCE its best director. Finally, THE CONSTANT GARDENER steps into SYRIANA's spot as the political, convoluted liberal-guilt offering in the category (although I like both films a great deal, which doesn't hurt). If the writers wish to go another way, there's always PRIDE & PREJUDICE, which distilled the classic novel into a workable two hours, although much of the attention has been given to the direction and performances rather than the adaptation. Beyond that, I just don't know...
How will I do? Tune in tomorrow and see!
Sunday, January 29, 2006
When the lights go down (Spoilers!)
BUBBLE (2005, Steven Soderbergh, seen in theatre)- after OCEAN'S 12, which was little more than a swagger-fest, Soderbergh heads for the heartland (southern Ohio, to be precise) for this small-scale gem. I was particularly taken by the director's use of non-actors in his cast. Debbie Doebreiner as Martha is especially good as the kind of overweight, middle-aged woman we don't often see in movies- a plain but nonetheless cheerful woman who (and this is the real difference) lives a largely unexamined life. She works, cares for her father, works at her job, eats without fretting over her weight (compare to, say, LOOK AT ME's Marilou Berry struggling with her body issues), and takes her religious faith for granted. She's the sort of person, whose life is on the straight and narrow, who is seen all the time in real life but rarely onscreen. It's the matter-of-fact way that Soderbergh portrays her, as well as others in her life, which makes the film special. In fact, I was a tad disappointed when Soderbergh introduces a murder mystery into the story, although my misgivings melted away when the film portrayed the subsequent investigation in the same low-key way (a scene where the police detective questions a clearly zonked-out witness is particularly well-done). There are a few stylistic flights of fancy taken by the film (which make sense in context), but it's this level of realism, which never rubs your face in squalor or segues into miserablism, that is Soderbergh's real triumph. Rating: ***1/2.
EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF (1980, Jean-Luc Godard, seen in theatre)- I'm still not entirely sure about my reaction to this one, given that it feels like a gap-bridger between the early Godards I love and the later Godards I don't care quite so much for. It's chock full of great moments you'll only find in a Godard movie, from the seemingly random freeze-frames and slow-motion to the sexual non sequiturs (love the "ow"/"oh"/"hey!" scene). As a whole, it's sort of impenetrable, with very little in the way of a narrative arc- what story there is is composed of interlocking character vignettes, but it's not readily apparent how they are meant to connect. Still, fascinating viewing, and Jacques Dutronc's impersonation of filmmaker "Paul Godard" is a hoot. Now if I only knew what it all meant... Rating: ***.
THE CONFORMIST (1970, Bernardo Bertolucci, seen in theatre)- obviously awesome, even more so for having experienced it on the big screen in a nice subtitled print instead of dubbed on cable. Still, bad luck for me having a headache and tummyache during the movie, which kept me from really grooving on it. But now that there's a good print out there how long will it be until there's a DVD for me to buy? Rating: ***1/2.
Z CHANNEL: A MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION (2004, Xan Cassavetes, seen on DVD)- pretty much what I was expecting (awesome film clips interspersed with interviews), but there's nothing wrong with that. I certainly wish I could've experienced Z Channel firsthand, and if nothing else it compelled me to add a bunch of titles (THE SICILIAN, TURKISH DELIGHT, LA MAGNIFIQUE) to the ol'Netflix queue. In fact, here's an idea for some enterprising DVD distributor: put out a "Z Channel Classics" series so that we can see all the great forgotten titles Harvey loved, or at the very least some movies starring the gorgeous Laura Antonelli. Rating: **1/2.
MATCH POINT (2005, Woody Allen, seen in theatre)- didn't watch this again or anything, just had a few second thoughts re: my high initial opinion of the movie. I still enjoyed it (being a Highsmith lover, how could I not?), but some problems I had with the movie grew upon reflection. To begin with, the film's treatment of Chloe's baby fever feels clumsy- Allen has always had a love-hate relationship with neurotic women in his films, but while in his self-starring comedies they clash with his own neuroses to priceless effect (never more so than Janet Margolin's siren-inspired coitus interruptus in ANNIE HALL), here they clash with the more cultivated level of behavior. Also, Scarlett Johansson's performance is pretty uneven- as seductress, she does a good job combining hunger with emotional neediness, but when she acts the role of the spurned lover she turns shrill, and consequently less interesting (still, she's not THAT bad, Lee). Still dig the movie overall, but not as much as before, and the change is certainly worth mentioning here. Rating: *** (was ***1/2).
EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF (1980, Jean-Luc Godard, seen in theatre)- I'm still not entirely sure about my reaction to this one, given that it feels like a gap-bridger between the early Godards I love and the later Godards I don't care quite so much for. It's chock full of great moments you'll only find in a Godard movie, from the seemingly random freeze-frames and slow-motion to the sexual non sequiturs (love the "ow"/"oh"/"hey!" scene). As a whole, it's sort of impenetrable, with very little in the way of a narrative arc- what story there is is composed of interlocking character vignettes, but it's not readily apparent how they are meant to connect. Still, fascinating viewing, and Jacques Dutronc's impersonation of filmmaker "Paul Godard" is a hoot. Now if I only knew what it all meant... Rating: ***.
THE CONFORMIST (1970, Bernardo Bertolucci, seen in theatre)- obviously awesome, even more so for having experienced it on the big screen in a nice subtitled print instead of dubbed on cable. Still, bad luck for me having a headache and tummyache during the movie, which kept me from really grooving on it. But now that there's a good print out there how long will it be until there's a DVD for me to buy? Rating: ***1/2.
Z CHANNEL: A MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION (2004, Xan Cassavetes, seen on DVD)- pretty much what I was expecting (awesome film clips interspersed with interviews), but there's nothing wrong with that. I certainly wish I could've experienced Z Channel firsthand, and if nothing else it compelled me to add a bunch of titles (THE SICILIAN, TURKISH DELIGHT, LA MAGNIFIQUE) to the ol'Netflix queue. In fact, here's an idea for some enterprising DVD distributor: put out a "Z Channel Classics" series so that we can see all the great forgotten titles Harvey loved, or at the very least some movies starring the gorgeous Laura Antonelli. Rating: **1/2.
MATCH POINT (2005, Woody Allen, seen in theatre)- didn't watch this again or anything, just had a few second thoughts re: my high initial opinion of the movie. I still enjoyed it (being a Highsmith lover, how could I not?), but some problems I had with the movie grew upon reflection. To begin with, the film's treatment of Chloe's baby fever feels clumsy- Allen has always had a love-hate relationship with neurotic women in his films, but while in his self-starring comedies they clash with his own neuroses to priceless effect (never more so than Janet Margolin's siren-inspired coitus interruptus in ANNIE HALL), here they clash with the more cultivated level of behavior. Also, Scarlett Johansson's performance is pretty uneven- as seductress, she does a good job combining hunger with emotional neediness, but when she acts the role of the spurned lover she turns shrill, and consequently less interesting (still, she's not THAT bad, Lee). Still dig the movie overall, but not as much as before, and the change is certainly worth mentioning here. Rating: *** (was ***1/2).
Friday, January 27, 2006
The guy on Friday
THE GIRL FROM MONDAY (2005, Hal Hartley, seen on DVD)- I'm not a huge Hartley fan, HENRY FOOL aside, but I am a fan of thinking-person's science fiction, which this certainly is. Here Hartley has on his mind the pervasiveness of media and advertising in our society- the film takes place in a near-future after MMM ("Multi Media Monopoly") has assumed power. Legal citizens are implanted with bar codes, and all that is valued by the society is linked to one's "buying power," even sex. Certainly an intriguing premise for a film, but the final result is less than satisfying. I was more intrigued by the ostensible subplot involving Sabrina Lloyd, an MMM exec-turned-counter-revolutionary, than I was with its main plotline, with Bill Sage as Lloyd's colleague, a double agent for the counter-revolution who discovers the titular Girl (Tatiana Abracos), an extraterrestrial who has fallen to Earth in search of another of her people. It's fairly obvious who this person is from the get-go, which I'm not sure is a deliberate decision on Hartley's part, but either way it's distracting. Although not as distracting as the smeary DV photography last seen in Hartley's BOOK OF LIFE- I'm certainly down with Hartley's refusal to make DV look like film-on-a-budget the way most indie filmmakers do, but here it mostly gets in the way of the film. Still, of interest as a think-piece, and who could hate a movie that contains the line, "you are hereby sentenced to two years hard labor, teaching high school"? Rating: **.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
More viewing at home
LOOK AT ME (2004, Agnes Jaoui, seen on DVD)- beginning to think that Jaoui's not my thing, given my tepid reactions to this and her previous film, THE TASTE OF OTHERS. But then, low-key comedies of manners centering around the lives of cultured artistic types don't hold a great deal of interest for me in general- while I aspire to a life similar to characters in Jaoui's films, I need there to be something more interesting about the characters and the narrative than how cultured they are. Compare this film to say, most of Arnaud Desplechin's filmography- while Desplechin's deepens his characters by allowing them to surprise themselves (and the audience), LOOK AT ME plods along. Not a whole lot of character development, Jaoui's character aside, as she learns to disdain the lifestyle her husband learns to enjoy. Meanwhile, the overweight Lolita (oh, what irony! ), played by Marilou Berry, doesn't so much deal with her deep-seated issues with daddy and her body as she constantly prattles on about them, and though Jean-Pierre Bacri gives the film's most interesting performance as famous author/Lolita's dad Etienne, he can't manage to escape the boorish nature of his character as conceived by Jaoui. All rather harmless, I guess, but I don't anticipate remembering much about it in a month or so. Rating: **.
Also, more thoughts on FORTY SHADES OF BLUE- one thing I didn't mention last time was how the film never quite gets the feel of the music-industry world in which it's set. In one sense, this could be deliberate, as we largely see the industry through outsiders' eyes- Laura (Dina Korzun), a Russian immigrant, and Michael (Darren Burrows), estranged son of music producer Allen James (Rip Torn). Yet even bearing this in mind, I thought the film dropped the ball by failing to convince me that Allen was the giant in his field who his colleagues insist he is at more than one point in the film. Had the film convinced me, it could have more successfully contrasted this image with the more human-sized one seen by Laura and Michael, making the film's final twenty minutes or so more emotional affecting, if still low-key. Also, the film's final scene (which is given away by the trailer) is your standard-issue Sundance-movie half-ending, which isn't always a bad thing but has become a rather annoying cliché of late.
Also, more thoughts on FORTY SHADES OF BLUE- one thing I didn't mention last time was how the film never quite gets the feel of the music-industry world in which it's set. In one sense, this could be deliberate, as we largely see the industry through outsiders' eyes- Laura (Dina Korzun), a Russian immigrant, and Michael (Darren Burrows), estranged son of music producer Allen James (Rip Torn). Yet even bearing this in mind, I thought the film dropped the ball by failing to convince me that Allen was the giant in his field who his colleagues insist he is at more than one point in the film. Had the film convinced me, it could have more successfully contrasted this image with the more human-sized one seen by Laura and Michael, making the film's final twenty minutes or so more emotional affecting, if still low-key. Also, the film's final scene (which is given away by the trailer) is your standard-issue Sundance-movie half-ending, which isn't always a bad thing but has become a rather annoying cliché of late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
