Review:
“Cries and Whispers” is a painful elegy to death and life and the separations that make them both so terrifying. With this film, Ingmar Bergman continued to prove he was one of a select few film directors who dared look directly into the quagmire of faith and the universe’s indifference.
Set in an old manor at the turn of the 20th century, “Cries and Whispers” is a tale about four women joined together by a common tragedy. Three of the women are sisters. One is a caretaker. Agnes (Harriet Andersson), one of the sisters, is in the final stages of a terminal cancer. It is for her sake that her two sisters come to the manor. They want to take care of her in her last days.
Maria (Liv Ullmann) is the sensual sister. She will provoke Agne’s doctor to rekindle an old affair. Karin (Ingrid Thulin) is the rigid and cold sister, always standing at a distance, almost afraid to approach dying Agnes. Then there is Anna (Kari Sylwan), Agnes' longtime caretaker. She is a woman of faith who cares deeply for the human soul. We see her wake one morning and pray that her dead daughter resides in the salvation of the lord.
Agnes and her death is the centerpiece of “Cries and Whispers.” Ingmar Bergman does not sugarcoat death here. He shows it in all its grim detail, holding the camera on close-ups of Agnes’ agonizing screams and painful expressions. Her death is not an easy thing to watch. Helpless and remote, her sisters witness Agnes suffering but cannot bring themselves to be empathetic or helpful. Only Anna, with her childlike faith and compassion, can provide Agnes with the simple human contact she needs for comfort.
“Cries and Whispers” is a shocking, beautiful film. All four women at one point have a significant flashback that serves to slightly illuminate their current behavior, but ultimately much about them and their relationships is left a mystery. And churning in this mystery are ruminations of illicit sexual behavior, suicidal chaos, and the dread and inescapability of isolation.
Most movies have the distinct feeling of a prose narrative, wrought with detail and insight, conforming to the structure of rising action and denouement. But sometimes a movie will transcend the prosaic tendency and take on the depth and succinctness of poetry. “Cries and Whispers” is one such movie. It is a grand poem of life and death, faith and loss. Bergman, after all, was never one to explore small themes.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Crimes and Misdemeanors” (1989).
Rationalization:
Both of these films have end monologues that serve as a sort of unexpected epilogue. And both of these films show you an array of actions that leave you a little baffled, but suddenly the epilogue is given and the whole meaning of the entire movie seems to shift from underneath your mind. With the end of “Cries and Whispers” you realize that this film is not as despairing as it seems. In fact, you could argue that the end affirms that all suffering and death is vindicated entirely by the gift of life.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Miracle (2004)
Review:
In 1980 The United States Hockey Team beat the Soviet Union’s team in the winter Olympics, an unprecedented triumph that came to be known as the miracle on ice. The game was seen as a much-needed bolster to American confidence in the midst of the cold war. In the late 1970s America, still shaken by Watergate and suffering from a recession and fuel crisis, was in great need of some affirmation that it could still win the cold war against the seemingly indomitable USSR. The miracle on ice was such an affirmation.
“Miracle”(2004) is the film based on that game and the events leading up to it. Director Gavin O’Connor and writer Eric Guggenheim wisely choose to focus on Herb Brooks (Kurt Russel) the passionate, implacable coach. Russel plays Brooks as a good hearted man determined to meet his goals and bring out the best in his team. Russel gives the finest performance in the film. Really, it’s the only performance.
When Russel is on screen, the film is engaging and has some excellent scenes. One particularly great scene involves an early hockey match. The US team ties the game. Instead of letting them retreat to the locker room Brooks forces them to do countless suicides well into the night. When the janitor of the rink turns off the power, Brooks persists in having his team continue their exercise, always chanting “Again.” This scene is fascinating and pivotal. It shows the semi-fanatical lengths Brooks will take to make his team perform to their potential.
Where “Miracle” slips up is when it shies away from Brooks and looks at the hockey team. The team, of course, is an important element of the movie - after all, they were the ones who won. But the character development of the team members is slight. There are a few problems some of the individual players must overcome, but those problems seem more like filler than relevant information. I found it hard to adequately distinguish the players, let alone care about them.
It might have been wiser to focus solely on Brook’s ruthless passion and treat the team as a unit. But, I suppose this would not be in the spirit of most team sports movies.
One of the most fascinating scenes in the film involves a press conference at the Olympics. Brooks will not let his team speak with the press and so takes all questions himself. A reporter suggests he won’t let his team speak because he wants all the focus on himself. Could that be true? The film suggests that was not his intention, but it may have been interesting to explore that more.
Ultimately, we have a good-looking sports movie here. The hockey scenes are exciting and well done. Even the verging-on-redundant explanations about why this game was so important to America are well done and appreciated. But when it comes to the hockey team itself, I found myself not caring enough.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is an “Blow” (2001)
Rationalization:
For those who love hockey and significant sporting events, this is a fine film. Its success is predicated on how well you can remember or understand the significance of the miracle on ice. It is an important story in American sports history and I think the filmmakers knew whom they were trying to reach in making it. They play it safe by not looking too hard at Brooks or the Russians, instead recalling only what made the event so inspirational. Thus, “Miracle” is inspiring but perhaps a little too simplistic. I would have liked to see this story told from the perspective of the Russian team. That could make for an intriguing movie
In 1980 The United States Hockey Team beat the Soviet Union’s team in the winter Olympics, an unprecedented triumph that came to be known as the miracle on ice. The game was seen as a much-needed bolster to American confidence in the midst of the cold war. In the late 1970s America, still shaken by Watergate and suffering from a recession and fuel crisis, was in great need of some affirmation that it could still win the cold war against the seemingly indomitable USSR. The miracle on ice was such an affirmation.
“Miracle”(2004) is the film based on that game and the events leading up to it. Director Gavin O’Connor and writer Eric Guggenheim wisely choose to focus on Herb Brooks (Kurt Russel) the passionate, implacable coach. Russel plays Brooks as a good hearted man determined to meet his goals and bring out the best in his team. Russel gives the finest performance in the film. Really, it’s the only performance.
When Russel is on screen, the film is engaging and has some excellent scenes. One particularly great scene involves an early hockey match. The US team ties the game. Instead of letting them retreat to the locker room Brooks forces them to do countless suicides well into the night. When the janitor of the rink turns off the power, Brooks persists in having his team continue their exercise, always chanting “Again.” This scene is fascinating and pivotal. It shows the semi-fanatical lengths Brooks will take to make his team perform to their potential.
Where “Miracle” slips up is when it shies away from Brooks and looks at the hockey team. The team, of course, is an important element of the movie - after all, they were the ones who won. But the character development of the team members is slight. There are a few problems some of the individual players must overcome, but those problems seem more like filler than relevant information. I found it hard to adequately distinguish the players, let alone care about them.
It might have been wiser to focus solely on Brook’s ruthless passion and treat the team as a unit. But, I suppose this would not be in the spirit of most team sports movies.
One of the most fascinating scenes in the film involves a press conference at the Olympics. Brooks will not let his team speak with the press and so takes all questions himself. A reporter suggests he won’t let his team speak because he wants all the focus on himself. Could that be true? The film suggests that was not his intention, but it may have been interesting to explore that more.
Ultimately, we have a good-looking sports movie here. The hockey scenes are exciting and well done. Even the verging-on-redundant explanations about why this game was so important to America are well done and appreciated. But when it comes to the hockey team itself, I found myself not caring enough.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is an “Blow” (2001)
Rationalization:
For those who love hockey and significant sporting events, this is a fine film. Its success is predicated on how well you can remember or understand the significance of the miracle on ice. It is an important story in American sports history and I think the filmmakers knew whom they were trying to reach in making it. They play it safe by not looking too hard at Brooks or the Russians, instead recalling only what made the event so inspirational. Thus, “Miracle” is inspiring but perhaps a little too simplistic. I would have liked to see this story told from the perspective of the Russian team. That could make for an intriguing movie
The Hurt Locker (2009)
Review:
What makes "The Hurt Locker" stand out among war pictures is how it can at once achieve something so visceral while not making any real statement for or against war. The film observes war like it observes its characters, without bias or awe. The main idea behind "Hurt Locker" seems to be that war exists and there are people who thrive under its chaotic dominion. "Patton" (1970) had a similar message. War is madness and so must be met and fought and dominated by people who are themselves, to a certain degree, mad
Jeremy Renner plays SSG William James. He is a bomb technician in Iraq in 2004. Every single day is a flirtation with death for James. He must defuse bombs that are found in rubble, cars, and other unspeakable places. One of the strong points of "The Hurt Locker" is that we never find out who is planting these bombs or why, they simply exist as a reality of life in Iraq. The people who have planted the bombs may be watching as James tries to defuse their bombs...but then again, those people watching may just be casual citizens interested in a military operation. Some of the most intriguing parts in "The Hurt Locker" involve those onlookers who may or may not be insurgents. There's a man with a video camera, a renegade taxi driver, some friendly pedestrians, and suicide bombers. Why were thy doing these things? Were they friendly or not? Director Katherine Bigelow and writer Mark Boal are smart to never offer answers.
With this strategy they create a concept of war that is probably more true to life - instead of a well plotted mission, war is depicted as a series of chaotic encounters, each one likely having no connection to anything preceding it. So instead of villains, in this film we have bombs - the almighty symbol of mass destruction, And by extension, war itself becomes the antagonist of the film - not an enemy, not an army, but simply war and its technologies. In the hero's seat we have William James, who is the only one crazy enough to challenge war in all its horrific facades.
But Jame's determination to unarm any bomb at all costs takes its toll on those around him. Men get injured, egos get battered, and nerves are blown. Sgt. JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) fully realizes the jeopardy James puts other soldiers in. Sanborn is in charge of the bomb squadron's safety and James constantly defies his orders, taking what Sanborn considers to be unnecessary risks. But while Sanborn disapproves of James he also resents James' talent, perhaps even secretly wishing he had the same foolhardy nerve.
In my opinion, one of the best sequences in the film involves James going AWOL. I won't elaborate on the circumstances or what he discovers, but suffice it to say, he happens upon an Iraqi household where he briefly meets a rational professor who has been thrust into an irrational situation. Although its quick, something about this scene stuck with me. James finds himself invading a place that need not be invaded and encounters a man who can be construed as nothing but innocent. This man does not make bombs. This scene works as a good metaphor and serves as one of the few moments that could be construed as making an anti-war statement.
"The Hurt Locker" is tough as nails and employs some elegant suspense. It never becomes preachy because it knows its rightful boundaries. This is a character study of war, one man, and their symbiosis. I would go so far as to say its the best movie yet made about the Iraq war.
Rating:
On a scale of one to "Casablanca" this film is a "Richard III" (1995).
Rationalization:
What drives great man has long been the fascination behind good stories. What drives great men to extremes is often the material of great stories. In many ways, James is as much of an extremist as those who plant the bombs he must defuse. He is dangerous and somewhat reckless. But he's also the best at what he does and he loves it. War is a game that can only be bested by those who can handle the extremes and thrive. Just as the cruel pranks in Altman's "MASH" (1970) were a desultory coping mechanism for the doctors, James' need to defuse any and all bombs at any cost is his way of maintaining control in an otherwise chaotic war.
What makes "The Hurt Locker" stand out among war pictures is how it can at once achieve something so visceral while not making any real statement for or against war. The film observes war like it observes its characters, without bias or awe. The main idea behind "Hurt Locker" seems to be that war exists and there are people who thrive under its chaotic dominion. "Patton" (1970) had a similar message. War is madness and so must be met and fought and dominated by people who are themselves, to a certain degree, mad
Jeremy Renner plays SSG William James. He is a bomb technician in Iraq in 2004. Every single day is a flirtation with death for James. He must defuse bombs that are found in rubble, cars, and other unspeakable places. One of the strong points of "The Hurt Locker" is that we never find out who is planting these bombs or why, they simply exist as a reality of life in Iraq. The people who have planted the bombs may be watching as James tries to defuse their bombs...but then again, those people watching may just be casual citizens interested in a military operation. Some of the most intriguing parts in "The Hurt Locker" involve those onlookers who may or may not be insurgents. There's a man with a video camera, a renegade taxi driver, some friendly pedestrians, and suicide bombers. Why were thy doing these things? Were they friendly or not? Director Katherine Bigelow and writer Mark Boal are smart to never offer answers.
With this strategy they create a concept of war that is probably more true to life - instead of a well plotted mission, war is depicted as a series of chaotic encounters, each one likely having no connection to anything preceding it. So instead of villains, in this film we have bombs - the almighty symbol of mass destruction, And by extension, war itself becomes the antagonist of the film - not an enemy, not an army, but simply war and its technologies. In the hero's seat we have William James, who is the only one crazy enough to challenge war in all its horrific facades.
But Jame's determination to unarm any bomb at all costs takes its toll on those around him. Men get injured, egos get battered, and nerves are blown. Sgt. JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) fully realizes the jeopardy James puts other soldiers in. Sanborn is in charge of the bomb squadron's safety and James constantly defies his orders, taking what Sanborn considers to be unnecessary risks. But while Sanborn disapproves of James he also resents James' talent, perhaps even secretly wishing he had the same foolhardy nerve.
In my opinion, one of the best sequences in the film involves James going AWOL. I won't elaborate on the circumstances or what he discovers, but suffice it to say, he happens upon an Iraqi household where he briefly meets a rational professor who has been thrust into an irrational situation. Although its quick, something about this scene stuck with me. James finds himself invading a place that need not be invaded and encounters a man who can be construed as nothing but innocent. This man does not make bombs. This scene works as a good metaphor and serves as one of the few moments that could be construed as making an anti-war statement.
"The Hurt Locker" is tough as nails and employs some elegant suspense. It never becomes preachy because it knows its rightful boundaries. This is a character study of war, one man, and their symbiosis. I would go so far as to say its the best movie yet made about the Iraq war.
Rating:
On a scale of one to "Casablanca" this film is a "Richard III" (1995).
Rationalization:
What drives great man has long been the fascination behind good stories. What drives great men to extremes is often the material of great stories. In many ways, James is as much of an extremist as those who plant the bombs he must defuse. He is dangerous and somewhat reckless. But he's also the best at what he does and he loves it. War is a game that can only be bested by those who can handle the extremes and thrive. Just as the cruel pranks in Altman's "MASH" (1970) were a desultory coping mechanism for the doctors, James' need to defuse any and all bombs at any cost is his way of maintaining control in an otherwise chaotic war.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Food Inc. (2008)
Review:
Documentaries like Michael Moore’s documentaries are good for society because, while they can be construed as either populist propaganda, the way it is, or somewhere between the two (the best bet), they at least start a dialogue. In my opinion, sparking people’s interests in pressing, contemporary issues is always good. Not to sound pompous or proselytize, but the foundation of a functioning democracy should be the informed discourse of the public. The documentary has thankful arisen as a powerful mechanism for the proliferation of information.
“Food Inc.” is not a Michael Moore documentary. Its less belligerent, more even tempered. Directed by Robert Kenner, it lays out a portrait of the American food industry that is less than becoming. The film explores how a few giant corporations are solely responsible for over 90% of food in America. Some of these companies practically have unquestioned monopolies over certain foods, crops, and even genes.
The thesis behind “Food Inc.” is that the all of the labels on the food we eat suggest the food comes from an idealized old-timey American farm when in fact it came from a giant processing factory, where contaminations and mistreatment of animals and laborers are just the norm.
With commentary from the likes of Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan, the film lays out how the food industry has become revolutionized over the past fifty years, beginning with the rise of fast food and the concept of running restaurants like factories. From there, the food industry grew into a well-oiled machine oriented around expediency and profit, often mowing over the traditional American farmers, forcing them out of business or forcing them to join the ranks of corporate farmers.
This is a startling documentary. It is another entry in a series of documentaries that seeks to show how profiteering corporations trample over the little guys with little to no regard for the country at large. Perhaps the most startling aspect of “Food Inc.” is the testimony of the small time farmers who have been ruined or coerced by these food companies.
If I had to be harsh on “Food Inc.” I would say parts of it are a little disorganized, not flowing naturally from one subject to the next. But “Food Inc.” is successful on a larger scale, painting a harrowing picture of a food system that needs drastic reform.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “21 Grams” (2003).
Rationalization:
Films that force you to see the bigger picture are always important. When taking a panoramic look at something, its best not to sweat the small stuff. “Food Inc.” is a fascinating film and will make you think twice about what you eat. And beyond its prompts for food industry reform, you see that the agenda of “Food Inc.” is also to raise awareness of issues concerning immigration, poverty, public health, and the people sitting in power in our government.
Documentaries like Michael Moore’s documentaries are good for society because, while they can be construed as either populist propaganda, the way it is, or somewhere between the two (the best bet), they at least start a dialogue. In my opinion, sparking people’s interests in pressing, contemporary issues is always good. Not to sound pompous or proselytize, but the foundation of a functioning democracy should be the informed discourse of the public. The documentary has thankful arisen as a powerful mechanism for the proliferation of information.
“Food Inc.” is not a Michael Moore documentary. Its less belligerent, more even tempered. Directed by Robert Kenner, it lays out a portrait of the American food industry that is less than becoming. The film explores how a few giant corporations are solely responsible for over 90% of food in America. Some of these companies practically have unquestioned monopolies over certain foods, crops, and even genes.
The thesis behind “Food Inc.” is that the all of the labels on the food we eat suggest the food comes from an idealized old-timey American farm when in fact it came from a giant processing factory, where contaminations and mistreatment of animals and laborers are just the norm.
With commentary from the likes of Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan, the film lays out how the food industry has become revolutionized over the past fifty years, beginning with the rise of fast food and the concept of running restaurants like factories. From there, the food industry grew into a well-oiled machine oriented around expediency and profit, often mowing over the traditional American farmers, forcing them out of business or forcing them to join the ranks of corporate farmers.
This is a startling documentary. It is another entry in a series of documentaries that seeks to show how profiteering corporations trample over the little guys with little to no regard for the country at large. Perhaps the most startling aspect of “Food Inc.” is the testimony of the small time farmers who have been ruined or coerced by these food companies.
If I had to be harsh on “Food Inc.” I would say parts of it are a little disorganized, not flowing naturally from one subject to the next. But “Food Inc.” is successful on a larger scale, painting a harrowing picture of a food system that needs drastic reform.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “21 Grams” (2003).
Rationalization:
Films that force you to see the bigger picture are always important. When taking a panoramic look at something, its best not to sweat the small stuff. “Food Inc.” is a fascinating film and will make you think twice about what you eat. And beyond its prompts for food industry reform, you see that the agenda of “Food Inc.” is also to raise awareness of issues concerning immigration, poverty, public health, and the people sitting in power in our government.
Romance & Cigarettes (2007)
Review:
How does one describe John Tuturro’s “Romance & Cigarettes?” Phrases that come to mind are ‘Blue Collar Fellini,’ ‘Poor Man’s “Moulin Rouge,” maybe even ‘an authentic modern musical.’ Its always hard and fun to describe movies like this, that defy expectations and try for something new. “Romance & Cigarettes” doesn’t consistently work, but when it works, it is magic.
James Gandolfini plays Nick, a heavy smoking steel worker who is having an affair with Tula (Kate Winslet) a kinky and quirky lingerie saleswoman. When Nick’s wife Kitty (Susan Sarandon) finds a poem that Nick wrote for Tula’s nether regions she takes it as an affirmation that Nick is indeed having an affair. Kitty and her three grown daughters (Mary-Louis Parker, Mandy Moore, and Aida Tuturro) gang up against Nick who then storms out of the house to expresses his grief and frustration. How does he express said grief and frustration you might ask? Well, by singing along with Engelbert Humperdinck’s recording of “A Man Without Love.” And when I write singing along, I literally mean the sound recording of the song is playing over the action and James Gandolfini, with all his amateurish vocalization, sings along with the song. Then garbage men enter the scene, also singing and dancing. Throughout the movie there will be singing interludes like this, where main characters take a moment to sing along with the soundtrack.
Director and writer John Tuturro raises some interesting points by constructing his unusual musical in this way. In my review of “Nine” (2009) I said that director Rob Marshall was pioneering the cerebral musical – where musical numbers take place entirely within the minds of its characters - to make a more realistic, accessible musical for today’s audiences. I think Tuturro is going after a similar end. “Romance & Cigarettes” is an intentionally disorganized musical.
If music suddenly descended from the sky and we were divinely imbued with corresponding lyrics, what makes us assume that we would look pretty while singing? Humans are not inherently pretty or organized like most musicals would suggest. We are messy beasts of emotion and action. In all likelihood, if the musical was a fact of reality, it would look something like James Gandolfini singing with garbage men in the street. Choreography is not a natural state of being.
I loved the musical numbers in this film. When “A Man Without Love” was sung, I couldn’t stop laughing for the first thirty seconds. I also particularly liked a song Tula sings under the water, and another song that Christopher Walken, yes, Christopher Walken, sings.
There is a surrealistic edge to this film that I admire greatly. But I found the scenes that flirt with realism to be not nearly as compelling. The acting is all precise and good, the writing is excellent, but I found myself always wanting the film to hurry along to the next musical number. That’s the real problem with this film. It will blast you with surreal energy and riotous humor and you cheer it on and its superb…and then it will languish too long on the ties that bind and everyday tragedies.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Rope” (1948)
Review:
There’s good stuff here. Really good stuff. But when a film is constantly making you think “Give me the payoff, I want my fix, where’s the action” it inherently becomes a distraction to itself. “Romance & Cigarettes” transforms too much. It moves from a raucous sex-musical into an odd dirge, and while they both work on some level, it’s hard to reconcile it as one film with a succinct focus. But insofar as the film does work it’s all in the concept. I love musicals because I think they are so weird. “Romance & Cigarettes” is a conscious affirmation of the weirdness.
How does one describe John Tuturro’s “Romance & Cigarettes?” Phrases that come to mind are ‘Blue Collar Fellini,’ ‘Poor Man’s “Moulin Rouge,” maybe even ‘an authentic modern musical.’ Its always hard and fun to describe movies like this, that defy expectations and try for something new. “Romance & Cigarettes” doesn’t consistently work, but when it works, it is magic.
James Gandolfini plays Nick, a heavy smoking steel worker who is having an affair with Tula (Kate Winslet) a kinky and quirky lingerie saleswoman. When Nick’s wife Kitty (Susan Sarandon) finds a poem that Nick wrote for Tula’s nether regions she takes it as an affirmation that Nick is indeed having an affair. Kitty and her three grown daughters (Mary-Louis Parker, Mandy Moore, and Aida Tuturro) gang up against Nick who then storms out of the house to expresses his grief and frustration. How does he express said grief and frustration you might ask? Well, by singing along with Engelbert Humperdinck’s recording of “A Man Without Love.” And when I write singing along, I literally mean the sound recording of the song is playing over the action and James Gandolfini, with all his amateurish vocalization, sings along with the song. Then garbage men enter the scene, also singing and dancing. Throughout the movie there will be singing interludes like this, where main characters take a moment to sing along with the soundtrack.
Director and writer John Tuturro raises some interesting points by constructing his unusual musical in this way. In my review of “Nine” (2009) I said that director Rob Marshall was pioneering the cerebral musical – where musical numbers take place entirely within the minds of its characters - to make a more realistic, accessible musical for today’s audiences. I think Tuturro is going after a similar end. “Romance & Cigarettes” is an intentionally disorganized musical.
If music suddenly descended from the sky and we were divinely imbued with corresponding lyrics, what makes us assume that we would look pretty while singing? Humans are not inherently pretty or organized like most musicals would suggest. We are messy beasts of emotion and action. In all likelihood, if the musical was a fact of reality, it would look something like James Gandolfini singing with garbage men in the street. Choreography is not a natural state of being.
I loved the musical numbers in this film. When “A Man Without Love” was sung, I couldn’t stop laughing for the first thirty seconds. I also particularly liked a song Tula sings under the water, and another song that Christopher Walken, yes, Christopher Walken, sings.
There is a surrealistic edge to this film that I admire greatly. But I found the scenes that flirt with realism to be not nearly as compelling. The acting is all precise and good, the writing is excellent, but I found myself always wanting the film to hurry along to the next musical number. That’s the real problem with this film. It will blast you with surreal energy and riotous humor and you cheer it on and its superb…and then it will languish too long on the ties that bind and everyday tragedies.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Rope” (1948)
Review:
There’s good stuff here. Really good stuff. But when a film is constantly making you think “Give me the payoff, I want my fix, where’s the action” it inherently becomes a distraction to itself. “Romance & Cigarettes” transforms too much. It moves from a raucous sex-musical into an odd dirge, and while they both work on some level, it’s hard to reconcile it as one film with a succinct focus. But insofar as the film does work it’s all in the concept. I love musicals because I think they are so weird. “Romance & Cigarettes” is a conscious affirmation of the weirdness.
Ordinary People (1980)
Review:
I’m glad I let Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” gestate for a few days in my head before writing this review. I think I had an unfair bias that was dispelled with some time and consideration. My initial interest in the “Ordinary People” was piqued by the fact that it won best picture in 1980 over Martin Scorsese’s “Raging Bull.” This was the same sort of fascination that inspired me to see John Ford’s “How Green Was My Valley” (1941), the film that won best picture over “Citizen Kane.” Both “Citizen Kane” and “Raging Bull” are widely considered to be better films than the ones that beat them out for best picture, and such was the origin of my bias against “Ordinary People.”
I came into the movie and for the first half of the film, all I really could think was “This is not as good as Raging Bull.” I thought it represented just another entry in a rising trend in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which was the socially conscious domestic drama. The socially conscious domestic drama (my own cumbersome term) has its origins going back at least as far as “Rebel Without a Cause” but likely even further. They are the films that try to take a hard and realistic look at how families function and fail. “Rebel Without a Cause” (1955) was a noble attempt to look at teenage displacement and alienation, but it does not stand the test of time. Today it looks innocent and rather hokey. With the renaissance of American film in the late 1960s there started a trend with films like “Bonnie and Clyde” (1967) and “The Graduate” (1967) to attempt to make statements not only about characters but about reality itself. These films tried to dispel the hocus pocus and melodrama of cinema and show something that felt more authentic to the audience. This gave rise to films such as “Easy Rider” (1969), “Midnight Cowboy” (1969) “Five Easy Pieces” (1970), and “Taxi Driver” (1976). But all of those films dealt with the fringes of society, the near socio-paths who can, in some light, be elevated to saints. After a time it is my belief that directors decided the typical family unit should be the focus of films that strive for unflinching reality and so we have the rise of films like “Ordinary People,” who’s title, I think is to ironically suggest that even in the white upper-middle class family unit, there is nothing that approaches normalcy.
The story is tragic. The Jarrett family’s oldest son Buck was killed in a sailing accident, leaving behind Calvin (Donald Sutherland) the shattered father, Beth (Mary Tyler Moore) the emotionally remote mother, and Conrad (Timothy Hutton) the younger brother who has recently tried to commit suicide. This is a family that is trying with all its energy and might to restore some semblance of unity, or at least balance, into their household.
Conrad is the focus of the film. He attempted suicide for reasons that become clearer as the film progresses but at the start of the movie he is a mystery. We sense that he is unstable, perhaps hanging on by a thread. He decides to go see a psychiatrist, Dr. Berger (Judd Hirsch). From his sessions with Dr. Berger and from witnessing Conrad’s family interactions we begin to understand how Buck’s death has forced each family member into a different type of isolation. Conrad suffers from a survivor’s guilt, Calvin cannot bring himself to express openly how he feels, and Beth has shut off any sense of motherly love.
The film is finely crafted and the dialogue is astute and gripping. A few times, the story treads close to becoming more of a lifetime movie, but it wisely and quickly shies away from the heart warming routes. Director Robert Redford here proves he understands the craft of great filmmaking. While there is nothing too distinctive about the directing, it stands strongly on its own legs, investing more in the power of the story than in creative shots.
The thing that stuck with me about “Ordinary People” in the days after I watched it was the ending. I won’t say what it is. I’ll only say the ending could have easily been a cop out and instead Redford and screenwriter Alvin Sargent provide a challenging finish. Its something you don’t see too often in the movies – the right ending.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Deer Hunter” (1978)
Rationalization:
I can’t stress the part about having the right ending enough. Yes, this is not a perfect film and certainly “Raging Bull” is better, but the end is so perfect. Frankly, life does not always turn out neatly under benevolent circumstances. In many ways “Ordinary People” reminded me of “Kramer vs. Kramer” (1979) and “Terms of Endearment” (1983) and I would also include those films as socially conscious domestic dramas (I think “Terms of Endearment” is the best example of these films). Anyways, “Ordinary People” is good drama that aptly questions whether family love is unconditional. Like with other great films, it does not come out with the easy answers.
I’m glad I let Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” gestate for a few days in my head before writing this review. I think I had an unfair bias that was dispelled with some time and consideration. My initial interest in the “Ordinary People” was piqued by the fact that it won best picture in 1980 over Martin Scorsese’s “Raging Bull.” This was the same sort of fascination that inspired me to see John Ford’s “How Green Was My Valley” (1941), the film that won best picture over “Citizen Kane.” Both “Citizen Kane” and “Raging Bull” are widely considered to be better films than the ones that beat them out for best picture, and such was the origin of my bias against “Ordinary People.”
I came into the movie and for the first half of the film, all I really could think was “This is not as good as Raging Bull.” I thought it represented just another entry in a rising trend in the late 1970s and early 1980s, which was the socially conscious domestic drama. The socially conscious domestic drama (my own cumbersome term) has its origins going back at least as far as “Rebel Without a Cause” but likely even further. They are the films that try to take a hard and realistic look at how families function and fail. “Rebel Without a Cause” (1955) was a noble attempt to look at teenage displacement and alienation, but it does not stand the test of time. Today it looks innocent and rather hokey. With the renaissance of American film in the late 1960s there started a trend with films like “Bonnie and Clyde” (1967) and “The Graduate” (1967) to attempt to make statements not only about characters but about reality itself. These films tried to dispel the hocus pocus and melodrama of cinema and show something that felt more authentic to the audience. This gave rise to films such as “Easy Rider” (1969), “Midnight Cowboy” (1969) “Five Easy Pieces” (1970), and “Taxi Driver” (1976). But all of those films dealt with the fringes of society, the near socio-paths who can, in some light, be elevated to saints. After a time it is my belief that directors decided the typical family unit should be the focus of films that strive for unflinching reality and so we have the rise of films like “Ordinary People,” who’s title, I think is to ironically suggest that even in the white upper-middle class family unit, there is nothing that approaches normalcy.
The story is tragic. The Jarrett family’s oldest son Buck was killed in a sailing accident, leaving behind Calvin (Donald Sutherland) the shattered father, Beth (Mary Tyler Moore) the emotionally remote mother, and Conrad (Timothy Hutton) the younger brother who has recently tried to commit suicide. This is a family that is trying with all its energy and might to restore some semblance of unity, or at least balance, into their household.
Conrad is the focus of the film. He attempted suicide for reasons that become clearer as the film progresses but at the start of the movie he is a mystery. We sense that he is unstable, perhaps hanging on by a thread. He decides to go see a psychiatrist, Dr. Berger (Judd Hirsch). From his sessions with Dr. Berger and from witnessing Conrad’s family interactions we begin to understand how Buck’s death has forced each family member into a different type of isolation. Conrad suffers from a survivor’s guilt, Calvin cannot bring himself to express openly how he feels, and Beth has shut off any sense of motherly love.
The film is finely crafted and the dialogue is astute and gripping. A few times, the story treads close to becoming more of a lifetime movie, but it wisely and quickly shies away from the heart warming routes. Director Robert Redford here proves he understands the craft of great filmmaking. While there is nothing too distinctive about the directing, it stands strongly on its own legs, investing more in the power of the story than in creative shots.
The thing that stuck with me about “Ordinary People” in the days after I watched it was the ending. I won’t say what it is. I’ll only say the ending could have easily been a cop out and instead Redford and screenwriter Alvin Sargent provide a challenging finish. Its something you don’t see too often in the movies – the right ending.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Deer Hunter” (1978)
Rationalization:
I can’t stress the part about having the right ending enough. Yes, this is not a perfect film and certainly “Raging Bull” is better, but the end is so perfect. Frankly, life does not always turn out neatly under benevolent circumstances. In many ways “Ordinary People” reminded me of “Kramer vs. Kramer” (1979) and “Terms of Endearment” (1983) and I would also include those films as socially conscious domestic dramas (I think “Terms of Endearment” is the best example of these films). Anyways, “Ordinary People” is good drama that aptly questions whether family love is unconditional. Like with other great films, it does not come out with the easy answers.
A Serious Man (2009)
Review:
The obvious thing to say about the Coen Brother's "A Serious Man" would be that it poses the question why do good things happen to bad people? Figuring this out is the driving impotus of Larry Gopnick (Michael Stuhlbarg), a jewish physics professor in middle America who is the Coen's subject this time around. Larry has found himself at the butt end of what seems to be a vast cosmic joke. Like Job before him, all Lary owns and knows seems to be coming under seige by forces well beyond his control. His wife Judith (Sari Lennick) wants a divorce. She's leaving Larry for his pious friend Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed). Larry's socially challenged brother Arthur (Richard Kind) is living on his sofa with no intention of leaving. Bills are mounting, Larry's tenure hangs in the balance and his children are indifferent to their family's disintegration...
The list goes on and Larry has not done anything wrong.
Most movies are structured around moralistic ideologies that we consider to ground society - the ideas that let us sleep easy at night. If bad things happen to good people in the movies, its usually because those good people did something bad or dumb. Thus, the bad things that descend upon them are the direct consequences of individual choices they have made.
Not so with Larry Gopnick. When a student who has recently failed his midterm tries to sweet talk Larry into giving him a better grade, Larry flatout refuses. Even when a mysterious bribe is offered from the student, Larry becomes incensed at the very thought of being bribed. Larry plays by the rules. He is a physics professor who has invested the entirety of his career (and faith) in the study of mathematics. I think he likes the certainty found in math and thats why he has nightmares about the uncertainty principle.
So when his life itself becomes an uncertainty principle and math no longer provides a solace, Larry looks to his religion, seeking out three rabbi's advice concerning his crumbling existence. Will the rabbi's have his answers? I will let you see the film to find out for youselves.
But I'll end with a conjecture about the ending (without giving it away). As I said at the beginning of the review, the obvious thing would be to say this is a film about why bad things happen to good people and so it is. But its about more than that, I think. For me, the end of the film suggests that no matter what you do, if you're holy or sinful, tyrranous or merciful, whether you've paid your debts or no, the implacable course of nature, the universe, god, whatever you want to call it, cannot be manipulated or altered.
Q: Why do bad things happen to good people?
A: Because.
The Coen's "A Serious Man" is not the question. Its the "because."
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a "From Here To Eternity" (1953)
Rationalization:
As I admitted a few reviews ago, the Coen's hardly ever do wrong by me, so I was somewhat predestined to like this film. I'd say that among the Coen Brothers Canon, this film's counterpart would be "Barton Fink" (1991) in its analysis of a single man becoming unraveled by forces beyond his control. But "Barton Fink" is, in my opinion, more about the unknowable, the evil, mysterious driving force behind all things bad. We never do find out what is in that box, you remember. "A Serious Man," like "The Seventh Seal" (1957) before it speaks to something very knowable - its just something we don't like to admit to our kids...or ourselves.
The obvious thing to say about the Coen Brother's "A Serious Man" would be that it poses the question why do good things happen to bad people? Figuring this out is the driving impotus of Larry Gopnick (Michael Stuhlbarg), a jewish physics professor in middle America who is the Coen's subject this time around. Larry has found himself at the butt end of what seems to be a vast cosmic joke. Like Job before him, all Lary owns and knows seems to be coming under seige by forces well beyond his control. His wife Judith (Sari Lennick) wants a divorce. She's leaving Larry for his pious friend Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed). Larry's socially challenged brother Arthur (Richard Kind) is living on his sofa with no intention of leaving. Bills are mounting, Larry's tenure hangs in the balance and his children are indifferent to their family's disintegration...
The list goes on and Larry has not done anything wrong.
Most movies are structured around moralistic ideologies that we consider to ground society - the ideas that let us sleep easy at night. If bad things happen to good people in the movies, its usually because those good people did something bad or dumb. Thus, the bad things that descend upon them are the direct consequences of individual choices they have made.
Not so with Larry Gopnick. When a student who has recently failed his midterm tries to sweet talk Larry into giving him a better grade, Larry flatout refuses. Even when a mysterious bribe is offered from the student, Larry becomes incensed at the very thought of being bribed. Larry plays by the rules. He is a physics professor who has invested the entirety of his career (and faith) in the study of mathematics. I think he likes the certainty found in math and thats why he has nightmares about the uncertainty principle.
So when his life itself becomes an uncertainty principle and math no longer provides a solace, Larry looks to his religion, seeking out three rabbi's advice concerning his crumbling existence. Will the rabbi's have his answers? I will let you see the film to find out for youselves.
But I'll end with a conjecture about the ending (without giving it away). As I said at the beginning of the review, the obvious thing would be to say this is a film about why bad things happen to good people and so it is. But its about more than that, I think. For me, the end of the film suggests that no matter what you do, if you're holy or sinful, tyrranous or merciful, whether you've paid your debts or no, the implacable course of nature, the universe, god, whatever you want to call it, cannot be manipulated or altered.
Q: Why do bad things happen to good people?
A: Because.
The Coen's "A Serious Man" is not the question. Its the "because."
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a "From Here To Eternity" (1953)
Rationalization:
As I admitted a few reviews ago, the Coen's hardly ever do wrong by me, so I was somewhat predestined to like this film. I'd say that among the Coen Brothers Canon, this film's counterpart would be "Barton Fink" (1991) in its analysis of a single man becoming unraveled by forces beyond his control. But "Barton Fink" is, in my opinion, more about the unknowable, the evil, mysterious driving force behind all things bad. We never do find out what is in that box, you remember. "A Serious Man," like "The Seventh Seal" (1957) before it speaks to something very knowable - its just something we don't like to admit to our kids...or ourselves.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Joe Versus the Volcano (1990)
Review:
I always had a sense that this movie existed, sort of in the same way I know there are other islands in the Pacific Ocean that aren’t Hawaii. But with those islands, I still like to lump ‘em with Hawaii. In my mind, “Joe Versus the Volcano” has been lumped with Turner and Hooch” (1989) and “Sleepless in Seattle” (1993);pretty much the Tom Hanks movies that bridge his mainly comedic work of the ‘80s to his more serious roles of the ‘90s.
And so, what do I think about a unique film like “Joe Versus the Volcano.” Well, I’ll start by saying it is a pretty unique film, a rare example of early ‘90s American expressionism. It looks like no other Tom Hanks film I have ever seen, including “Forest Gump” (1994) and “Cast Away” (2000) and its plot is also singularly odd in the Tom Hanks filmography, including “Splash” (1984) and “The Man with One Red Shoe” (1985).
Joe (Tom Hanks) is an Advertising Librarian for a medical supplies company in New York. His office is a hellish place that makes the bathroom setting in “Saw” (2004) look like a spa at club med. It is an office filled with flickering florescent lights and a man who endlessly repeats the same phrases again and again. One day Joe feels sickly and decides to go to the doctor who promptly informs him he has a brain cloud. As to what a brain cloud is exactly, we never find out, but we are informed it will kill Joe within six months.
The next morning a spastic businessman, Samuel Graynamore (played hilariously by Lloyd Bridges) comes knocking at Joe’s door. He has a proposition for Joe. There’s a little known volcanic island in the pacific that has a special element Graynamore needs to make superconductors. The tribe on the island will allow Graynamore to take as much of the element as he pleases if he can find them a willing participant to jump into the island’s volcano to appease the volcano gods. Graynamore believes Joe is his man and Joe, seeing he has nothing to lose, agrees to do it.
The majority of the film follows Joe as he travels to the island. He buys a new wardrobe of clothes, hires limousines and travels luxuriously by air and by sea, all on Graynamore’s dime. Along the way Joe meets Graynamore’s daughters Angelica and Patricia (both played by Meg Ryan) and learns the value of truly living.
I appreciated some parts of this movie very much. For instance, a scene in which Joe beholds a giant moon at sea and begins to pray is very powerful. But on the whole, “Joe Versus the Volcano” is uneven. If writer-director John Patrick Shanley had presented a more consistent vision I would have liked this film a better. The surrealistic edge to “Joe” is great, but too often it flips over into scenes that look realistic and lack stylization. It makes for a choppy film going experience.
I also wasn’t impressed by the romance between Joe and Patricia. It seems to me the sister Angelica was frivolous to the plot and Patricia, who becomes Joe’s love interest, could have easily subsumed her role. When Patricia confesses her love to Joe it seems rushed and undeveloped. I didn’t buy it.
“Joes Versus the Volcano” is ultimately an oddity and if you’re a Tom Hanks fan its worth checking out. But when I consider what this film is versus what it could have been, I wish what it could have been had won.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Superman Returns” (2006)
Rationalization:
What it is versus what it could have been says it all. I really wanted “Superman Returns” to be awesome, but let’s face it, “Superman Returns” is a disappointment. If you give Lois Lane a husband and a kid, you really can’t root for Superman to get the girl in the end without also making him into a super-dick. And no hand to hand face-off with Lex Luthor? That’s just a shame. There’s one scene where Luthor’s goons kick the crap out of Superman and that sets up tension that should have been released by Superman’s vengeance. But no. No vengeance. Apparently it didn’t get personal for Superman even though it was clearly personal. Some people would say superman is not a vengeful creature, but he is. Remember in the Max Fleischer cartoons how Superman could just pick up a villain and throw him in jail without due process? In my mind, that is real vengeance and real power. But no. In “Superman Returns” he just chose to be boring.
I always had a sense that this movie existed, sort of in the same way I know there are other islands in the Pacific Ocean that aren’t Hawaii. But with those islands, I still like to lump ‘em with Hawaii. In my mind, “Joe Versus the Volcano” has been lumped with Turner and Hooch” (1989) and “Sleepless in Seattle” (1993);pretty much the Tom Hanks movies that bridge his mainly comedic work of the ‘80s to his more serious roles of the ‘90s.
And so, what do I think about a unique film like “Joe Versus the Volcano.” Well, I’ll start by saying it is a pretty unique film, a rare example of early ‘90s American expressionism. It looks like no other Tom Hanks film I have ever seen, including “Forest Gump” (1994) and “Cast Away” (2000) and its plot is also singularly odd in the Tom Hanks filmography, including “Splash” (1984) and “The Man with One Red Shoe” (1985).
Joe (Tom Hanks) is an Advertising Librarian for a medical supplies company in New York. His office is a hellish place that makes the bathroom setting in “Saw” (2004) look like a spa at club med. It is an office filled with flickering florescent lights and a man who endlessly repeats the same phrases again and again. One day Joe feels sickly and decides to go to the doctor who promptly informs him he has a brain cloud. As to what a brain cloud is exactly, we never find out, but we are informed it will kill Joe within six months.
The next morning a spastic businessman, Samuel Graynamore (played hilariously by Lloyd Bridges) comes knocking at Joe’s door. He has a proposition for Joe. There’s a little known volcanic island in the pacific that has a special element Graynamore needs to make superconductors. The tribe on the island will allow Graynamore to take as much of the element as he pleases if he can find them a willing participant to jump into the island’s volcano to appease the volcano gods. Graynamore believes Joe is his man and Joe, seeing he has nothing to lose, agrees to do it.
The majority of the film follows Joe as he travels to the island. He buys a new wardrobe of clothes, hires limousines and travels luxuriously by air and by sea, all on Graynamore’s dime. Along the way Joe meets Graynamore’s daughters Angelica and Patricia (both played by Meg Ryan) and learns the value of truly living.
I appreciated some parts of this movie very much. For instance, a scene in which Joe beholds a giant moon at sea and begins to pray is very powerful. But on the whole, “Joe Versus the Volcano” is uneven. If writer-director John Patrick Shanley had presented a more consistent vision I would have liked this film a better. The surrealistic edge to “Joe” is great, but too often it flips over into scenes that look realistic and lack stylization. It makes for a choppy film going experience.
I also wasn’t impressed by the romance between Joe and Patricia. It seems to me the sister Angelica was frivolous to the plot and Patricia, who becomes Joe’s love interest, could have easily subsumed her role. When Patricia confesses her love to Joe it seems rushed and undeveloped. I didn’t buy it.
“Joes Versus the Volcano” is ultimately an oddity and if you’re a Tom Hanks fan its worth checking out. But when I consider what this film is versus what it could have been, I wish what it could have been had won.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “Superman Returns” (2006)
Rationalization:
What it is versus what it could have been says it all. I really wanted “Superman Returns” to be awesome, but let’s face it, “Superman Returns” is a disappointment. If you give Lois Lane a husband and a kid, you really can’t root for Superman to get the girl in the end without also making him into a super-dick. And no hand to hand face-off with Lex Luthor? That’s just a shame. There’s one scene where Luthor’s goons kick the crap out of Superman and that sets up tension that should have been released by Superman’s vengeance. But no. No vengeance. Apparently it didn’t get personal for Superman even though it was clearly personal. Some people would say superman is not a vengeful creature, but he is. Remember in the Max Fleischer cartoons how Superman could just pick up a villain and throw him in jail without due process? In my mind, that is real vengeance and real power. But no. In “Superman Returns” he just chose to be boring.
Blood Simple (1984)
Review:
The Coen Brother’s “Blood Simple” has all the trappings we’ve come to associate with a Coen brothers’ film. It would appear this, their first film, has served as the prototype for the great films to come. In “Blood Simple” we have the wide open country (“No Country for Old Men”), portentous headlights emerging from the night (“Fargo”) we have ominous ceiling fans (“Barton Fink”) and terrible deaths (“Miller’s Crossing”) and of course, we have a simple crime that goes terribly wrong (“Raising Arizona,” “Fargo,” “The Big Lebowski,” “No Country,” “Burn After Reading”).
I should now confess that the Coen Brothers always rub me the right way. Their quirkiness and defiance of expectations send tingles down my spine that put me in a good mood, no matter how peculiar the material. Just like with Kubrick, Woody Allen, Scorsese, Clint Eastwood, and Fellini I can always find something to like in their films.
“Blood Simple” starts off like so many other movies and then diverts and meanders into a plot that’s hard to see coming but easy enough to follow. Marty (Dan Hedaya), a jealous bar owner, hires Loren Visser (M. Emmet Walsh), a private detective of questionable moral integrity, to spy on his wife Abby (Frances McDormand). Abby is having an affair with one of Marty’s employees, Ray (John Getz). When Visser informs Marty of Abby’s infidelity, Marty hires him to kill the lovers. He offers Visser ten thousand dollars and it is an offer Visser can’t turn down. That is the set up and to elaborate any more on the plot would be a disservice to the film - except to say that Visser has a plan of his own.
In some ways, this film reminded me of Sam Raimi’s “A Simple Plan” (1998) (coincidentally the Coen’s got their start working for Raimi). Both films are about how a series of independently motivated actions can add to a complete and encompassing massacre. I suppose for that matter, “Fargo” and “No Country” are that way too.
But as with all Coen brothers what makes this movie so good is the particulars of the camerawork and the oddities of the characters. The camera glides all over, sometimes smoothly, sometimes rough, sometimes along the floor or a street, and other times at eye level. It takes on strange yet affecting angles, like underneath a sink looking up or above a ceiling fan looking down.
M. Emmet Walsh as Visser comes off as a striking villain. He sometimes seems a simpleton, which makes us like him, and sometimes a vicious killer, which makes us fear him. One of his greatest amusements in life seems to be a toy woman, dangling from his rearview mirror, who’s breasts light up when turned on. Can such an easily amused man be a ruthless killer? You bet.
“Blood Simple,” for a first film is impressive. It is beyond apprentice work. While the Coens would go on to make better, even stranger movies, “Blood Simple” has a memorable quality all its own.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (1974).
Rationalization:
Well, sometimes people just make bad decisions. I didn’t mention much about the main character Ray in the review, but suffice it to say, he makes a very bad decision in “Blood Simple” – one that will change the rest of his life and the course of this movie. The scenes in which he makes this decision are the best scenes in the film, wrought with suspense, horror, and evocative pity. We understand why Ray does it, but still…
It makes you think that God just likes to mess with some people.
The Coen Brother’s “Blood Simple” has all the trappings we’ve come to associate with a Coen brothers’ film. It would appear this, their first film, has served as the prototype for the great films to come. In “Blood Simple” we have the wide open country (“No Country for Old Men”), portentous headlights emerging from the night (“Fargo”) we have ominous ceiling fans (“Barton Fink”) and terrible deaths (“Miller’s Crossing”) and of course, we have a simple crime that goes terribly wrong (“Raising Arizona,” “Fargo,” “The Big Lebowski,” “No Country,” “Burn After Reading”).
I should now confess that the Coen Brothers always rub me the right way. Their quirkiness and defiance of expectations send tingles down my spine that put me in a good mood, no matter how peculiar the material. Just like with Kubrick, Woody Allen, Scorsese, Clint Eastwood, and Fellini I can always find something to like in their films.
“Blood Simple” starts off like so many other movies and then diverts and meanders into a plot that’s hard to see coming but easy enough to follow. Marty (Dan Hedaya), a jealous bar owner, hires Loren Visser (M. Emmet Walsh), a private detective of questionable moral integrity, to spy on his wife Abby (Frances McDormand). Abby is having an affair with one of Marty’s employees, Ray (John Getz). When Visser informs Marty of Abby’s infidelity, Marty hires him to kill the lovers. He offers Visser ten thousand dollars and it is an offer Visser can’t turn down. That is the set up and to elaborate any more on the plot would be a disservice to the film - except to say that Visser has a plan of his own.
In some ways, this film reminded me of Sam Raimi’s “A Simple Plan” (1998) (coincidentally the Coen’s got their start working for Raimi). Both films are about how a series of independently motivated actions can add to a complete and encompassing massacre. I suppose for that matter, “Fargo” and “No Country” are that way too.
But as with all Coen brothers what makes this movie so good is the particulars of the camerawork and the oddities of the characters. The camera glides all over, sometimes smoothly, sometimes rough, sometimes along the floor or a street, and other times at eye level. It takes on strange yet affecting angles, like underneath a sink looking up or above a ceiling fan looking down.
M. Emmet Walsh as Visser comes off as a striking villain. He sometimes seems a simpleton, which makes us like him, and sometimes a vicious killer, which makes us fear him. One of his greatest amusements in life seems to be a toy woman, dangling from his rearview mirror, who’s breasts light up when turned on. Can such an easily amused man be a ruthless killer? You bet.
“Blood Simple,” for a first film is impressive. It is beyond apprentice work. While the Coens would go on to make better, even stranger movies, “Blood Simple” has a memorable quality all its own.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is a “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (1974).
Rationalization:
Well, sometimes people just make bad decisions. I didn’t mention much about the main character Ray in the review, but suffice it to say, he makes a very bad decision in “Blood Simple” – one that will change the rest of his life and the course of this movie. The scenes in which he makes this decision are the best scenes in the film, wrought with suspense, horror, and evocative pity. We understand why Ray does it, but still…
It makes you think that God just likes to mess with some people.
Nights of Cabiria (1957)
Review:
I think you can make the argument that Fellini’s “Juliet of the Spirits” (1965) is the female counterpoint to his “8 ½” (1963). Both are films that analyze a central character whose life seems to be coming apart at the seams, in large part due to extra-marital affairs and existential concerns. In “8 ½” we have the Guido, who wants to tame all the women in his life to restore a semblance of continuity in his career and in his existence. With “Juliet of the Spirits,” we follow Juliet, a woman who has been shattered by her cheating husband and who decides to leave him to restore that same sort of continuity of existence Guido sought.
But before “8 ½” and “Juliet of the Spirits” Fellini made two other films that serve as gender based counterpoints – “La Dolce Vita” (1960) and “Nights of Cabiria.” (1959). Both films explore similar characters and similar themes. Fellini’s heroes in these films are the bottom rung of society and we watch as they try to scrape their way out of their positions in search of greater meaning and purpose. While “La Dolce Vita” is the superior film, “Nights of Cabiria” still holds its own.
In recent years “Nights” has joined Fellini’s “La Strada” in accruing a wider and wider audience. Slowly, these films are becoming as widely seen as “8 ½” and “La Dolce Vita.” “Nights of Cabiria” tells the story of Cabiria, a tiny and cute prostitute whose innocence is her greatest charm and weakness. Fellini buffs will note that we have met Cabiria once before in Fellini’s first feature “The White Sheik” (1952). Both times she is played by Fellini’s wife, the great Giulietta Masina.
Masina always has such an expressive face. In some scenes she can exhibit the angelic demeanor of a child and in others she can look as morose as an old, dying woman. “Nights of Cabiria” begins with Cabiria’s pimp stealing her purse and pushing her into a river. She nearly drowns. When she is saved she is discouraged to understand her pimp valued her life less than the 40,000 lira he stole with her purse. Cabiria leads a sad existence but she is indomitable. She does not give up, no matter how dire the circumstances.
Like with Marcello in “La Dolce Vita,” we follow Cabiria through a series of episodic adventures that mostly take place at night. One night she gets picked up by a famous movie star who’s had a falling out with his finacee. Another time, Cabiria follows a rhapsodic crowd that longs to have a vision of the Virgin Mary. Another night she meets a Good Samaritan handing out food to the homeless. With this Samaritan, Cabiria meets an older prostitute who used to be a beauty, now living destitute in a cave outside of Rome. For Cabiria, this woman is a forecast of things to come if she doesn’t change her life.
Thus, when a nice man comes out of the night, expressing love and his intentions to marry Cabiria, she sees her way out. Are these man’s intentions true and honest? I will not give it away - but I will say that Fellini has a tendency to bookend his films.
The final scene of “Nights of Cabiria” is beautiful and one of Fellini’s best endings. It is a synthesis of a parade and a party with Cabiria at the center, staring with quiet determination into the camera. Of all Fellini’s vivid images, this one may best encompass his vision of the human experience.
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca”, this film is an "About Schmidt" (2003).
Rationalization:
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a person who wouldn't admit that sometimes life can be a series of low-blows and inequities. And yet, we struggle on, trying to make the best of our situations in an otherwise cruel and indifferent world. Movies like these make me grieve and hope for humanity, showing us what is best in our natures while never denying we are pathetic creatures with a loose grip on even our own lives.
I think you can make the argument that Fellini’s “Juliet of the Spirits” (1965) is the female counterpoint to his “8 ½” (1963). Both are films that analyze a central character whose life seems to be coming apart at the seams, in large part due to extra-marital affairs and existential concerns. In “8 ½” we have the Guido, who wants to tame all the women in his life to restore a semblance of continuity in his career and in his existence. With “Juliet of the Spirits,” we follow Juliet, a woman who has been shattered by her cheating husband and who decides to leave him to restore that same sort of continuity of existence Guido sought.
But before “8 ½” and “Juliet of the Spirits” Fellini made two other films that serve as gender based counterpoints – “La Dolce Vita” (1960) and “Nights of Cabiria.” (1959). Both films explore similar characters and similar themes. Fellini’s heroes in these films are the bottom rung of society and we watch as they try to scrape their way out of their positions in search of greater meaning and purpose. While “La Dolce Vita” is the superior film, “Nights of Cabiria” still holds its own.
In recent years “Nights” has joined Fellini’s “La Strada” in accruing a wider and wider audience. Slowly, these films are becoming as widely seen as “8 ½” and “La Dolce Vita.” “Nights of Cabiria” tells the story of Cabiria, a tiny and cute prostitute whose innocence is her greatest charm and weakness. Fellini buffs will note that we have met Cabiria once before in Fellini’s first feature “The White Sheik” (1952). Both times she is played by Fellini’s wife, the great Giulietta Masina.
Masina always has such an expressive face. In some scenes she can exhibit the angelic demeanor of a child and in others she can look as morose as an old, dying woman. “Nights of Cabiria” begins with Cabiria’s pimp stealing her purse and pushing her into a river. She nearly drowns. When she is saved she is discouraged to understand her pimp valued her life less than the 40,000 lira he stole with her purse. Cabiria leads a sad existence but she is indomitable. She does not give up, no matter how dire the circumstances.
Like with Marcello in “La Dolce Vita,” we follow Cabiria through a series of episodic adventures that mostly take place at night. One night she gets picked up by a famous movie star who’s had a falling out with his finacee. Another time, Cabiria follows a rhapsodic crowd that longs to have a vision of the Virgin Mary. Another night she meets a Good Samaritan handing out food to the homeless. With this Samaritan, Cabiria meets an older prostitute who used to be a beauty, now living destitute in a cave outside of Rome. For Cabiria, this woman is a forecast of things to come if she doesn’t change her life.
Thus, when a nice man comes out of the night, expressing love and his intentions to marry Cabiria, she sees her way out. Are these man’s intentions true and honest? I will not give it away - but I will say that Fellini has a tendency to bookend his films.
The final scene of “Nights of Cabiria” is beautiful and one of Fellini’s best endings. It is a synthesis of a parade and a party with Cabiria at the center, staring with quiet determination into the camera. Of all Fellini’s vivid images, this one may best encompass his vision of the human experience.
Rating:
On a scale of one to “Casablanca”, this film is an "About Schmidt" (2003).
Rationalization:
I think you'd be hard pressed to find a person who wouldn't admit that sometimes life can be a series of low-blows and inequities. And yet, we struggle on, trying to make the best of our situations in an otherwise cruel and indifferent world. Movies like these make me grieve and hope for humanity, showing us what is best in our natures while never denying we are pathetic creatures with a loose grip on even our own lives.
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)
Review:
Not since “Oldboy” (2003) have I seen a film that so thoroughly resonates with the underpinnings of Greek tragedy. I don’t think most films are daring enough to get involved in the melodramatics fundamental to Greek Tragedy but Sidney Lumet’s “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” goes the distance.
Philip Seymore Hoffman plays Andy Hanson, a well-to-do payroll clerk at a real estate business. Andy has a bad drug habit, a rocky marriage with his wife Gina (Marisa Tomei), and a habit of embezzling money from his company. When it is announced a company audit will be given, Andy realizes he is in dire need of money.
Andy’s younger brother Hank (Ethan Hawke) is a divorcee who is struggling to make his child support payments. He is essentially a good guy and tries his best to be a good father but he always seems to be coming up short. Hank needs some money too.
Andy proposes an idea to Hank to solve both their financial woes. They will plan and execute a heist of a jewelry store, a real “mom and pop operation.” How literal a mom and pop operation they plan to rob I will leave you to discover. Suffice it to say, the robbery does not go as planned. Things go very, very wrong.
Soon Hank and Andy’s father Charles (Albert Finney) becomes entangled in the fallout from the robbery and from that point onward the story takes on the Greek tragic proportions. As I watched this movie unfold I couldn’t help but think of my old friends Oedipus and Elektra, Antigone and Orestes.
Philip Seymore Hoffman and Finney provide the emotional center of the film. Their performances are grand but never unbelievable. Hoffman is especially good. He portrays Andy in a light that is very hard to capture – a villain who is only one small step away from being a sympathetic character. Andy is a terrible man but I don’t think he is inherently an evil entity like Hannibal Lecter or Anton Chigurh. His deep insecurities have robbed him of a true sense of self. It is made clear in one very poignant scene that Andy has never been comfortable with who he is or his place within his family. We realize this is what has driven him to such desperate ends.
There is yet another potent scene where Andy despondently tears apart a room after his wife leaves. This scene cannot be anything but a reference to “Citizen Kane” (1941) and like with Charles Foster Kane, I came away from this film deploring Andy’s actions but understanding exactly why he did them.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is an “All the Presidents Men” (1976).
Rationalization:
You never know what you can do until you put your mind to it. Alternatively, you never know what you can’t do until you try to do it. “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” is not a typical crime thriller because the heist itself seems secondary to the aftermath. It fails within the first ten minutes of the film. In this way, “Before the Devil” can be compared to “Reservoir Dogs” (1992), another film about the messy consequences of a failed robbery. But unlike “Reservoir Dogs,” the primary concern of “Before the Devil” is family and if it can survive with a horrible elephant in the room.
Not since “Oldboy” (2003) have I seen a film that so thoroughly resonates with the underpinnings of Greek tragedy. I don’t think most films are daring enough to get involved in the melodramatics fundamental to Greek Tragedy but Sidney Lumet’s “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” goes the distance.
Philip Seymore Hoffman plays Andy Hanson, a well-to-do payroll clerk at a real estate business. Andy has a bad drug habit, a rocky marriage with his wife Gina (Marisa Tomei), and a habit of embezzling money from his company. When it is announced a company audit will be given, Andy realizes he is in dire need of money.
Andy’s younger brother Hank (Ethan Hawke) is a divorcee who is struggling to make his child support payments. He is essentially a good guy and tries his best to be a good father but he always seems to be coming up short. Hank needs some money too.
Andy proposes an idea to Hank to solve both their financial woes. They will plan and execute a heist of a jewelry store, a real “mom and pop operation.” How literal a mom and pop operation they plan to rob I will leave you to discover. Suffice it to say, the robbery does not go as planned. Things go very, very wrong.
Soon Hank and Andy’s father Charles (Albert Finney) becomes entangled in the fallout from the robbery and from that point onward the story takes on the Greek tragic proportions. As I watched this movie unfold I couldn’t help but think of my old friends Oedipus and Elektra, Antigone and Orestes.
Philip Seymore Hoffman and Finney provide the emotional center of the film. Their performances are grand but never unbelievable. Hoffman is especially good. He portrays Andy in a light that is very hard to capture – a villain who is only one small step away from being a sympathetic character. Andy is a terrible man but I don’t think he is inherently an evil entity like Hannibal Lecter or Anton Chigurh. His deep insecurities have robbed him of a true sense of self. It is made clear in one very poignant scene that Andy has never been comfortable with who he is or his place within his family. We realize this is what has driven him to such desperate ends.
There is yet another potent scene where Andy despondently tears apart a room after his wife leaves. This scene cannot be anything but a reference to “Citizen Kane” (1941) and like with Charles Foster Kane, I came away from this film deploring Andy’s actions but understanding exactly why he did them.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca, this film is an “All the Presidents Men” (1976).
Rationalization:
You never know what you can do until you put your mind to it. Alternatively, you never know what you can’t do until you try to do it. “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” is not a typical crime thriller because the heist itself seems secondary to the aftermath. It fails within the first ten minutes of the film. In this way, “Before the Devil” can be compared to “Reservoir Dogs” (1992), another film about the messy consequences of a failed robbery. But unlike “Reservoir Dogs,” the primary concern of “Before the Devil” is family and if it can survive with a horrible elephant in the room.
Yes Man (2008)
Review:
So Nick (John Michael Higgins) convinces Carl (Jim Carrey) to come to a Yes Seminar and by the end of it Carl has committed to saying ‘yes’ to everything that comes his way. If a homeless man asks for a ride somewhere – yes. If a homeless man asks to use your cell phone – yes. If a homeless man asks for all your money – yes. If the little old lady next door offers coital payment… – yes.
Carl needs this. His life has been a three year long no-binge since his wife left him. He avoids his friends and stays in and watches movies all the time. Conveniently, he is a loan clerk at a bank, a job that thrives on saying ‘no.’ But when ‘yes’ is added as the exclusive response, watch out! Hilarity will ensue.
“Yes Man” is a film I think I was predisposed to like. It can be seen as a bridge between Carey’s zany and serious films (for that matter, ‘Liar, Liar’ (1996) can also be viewed this way). I’d be more inclined to be down on the predictable romantic developments in the film but Zooey Deschanel as love interest Allison is so enjoyable to behold. One of the highlights of ‘Yes Man’ is her live performance with the band ‘Munchausen by Proxy,’ a band who’s outfits include headdresses that look like sea horses. I would love to go to a rock show like that.
Anyways, because Jim Carey decides to say yes to everything, he is forced into a bunch of humorous situations like a drunken bar fight, a Harry Potter costume party, and a photography-while-jogging class. Could the movie have dug deeper for a more complicated situational comedy? Yes. Could the inevitable romantic crisis at the beginning of act III have been more original? Yes. Could the writers and director have extracted a more profound message on how to live life? Yes. Could this have been a better film? Yes.
But the movie made me laugh and so it goes.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Easy Money” (1983)
Rationalization:
Watching Jim Carey, like watching Rodney Dangerfield, is like putting on a really comfortable, old shoe. You generally know what’s coming but you know you’ll be amused. Sure, I’d say “Liar, Liar” is a better movie than “Yes Man” just like “Back to School” is a better movie than “Easy Money” but in some respects comparing these movies is like splitting hairs. What you see is what you get and what you get is pretty entertaining. So, if you can’t say ‘yes’ to this movie you might want to say ‘why not?’
So Nick (John Michael Higgins) convinces Carl (Jim Carrey) to come to a Yes Seminar and by the end of it Carl has committed to saying ‘yes’ to everything that comes his way. If a homeless man asks for a ride somewhere – yes. If a homeless man asks to use your cell phone – yes. If a homeless man asks for all your money – yes. If the little old lady next door offers coital payment… – yes.
Carl needs this. His life has been a three year long no-binge since his wife left him. He avoids his friends and stays in and watches movies all the time. Conveniently, he is a loan clerk at a bank, a job that thrives on saying ‘no.’ But when ‘yes’ is added as the exclusive response, watch out! Hilarity will ensue.
“Yes Man” is a film I think I was predisposed to like. It can be seen as a bridge between Carey’s zany and serious films (for that matter, ‘Liar, Liar’ (1996) can also be viewed this way). I’d be more inclined to be down on the predictable romantic developments in the film but Zooey Deschanel as love interest Allison is so enjoyable to behold. One of the highlights of ‘Yes Man’ is her live performance with the band ‘Munchausen by Proxy,’ a band who’s outfits include headdresses that look like sea horses. I would love to go to a rock show like that.
Anyways, because Jim Carey decides to say yes to everything, he is forced into a bunch of humorous situations like a drunken bar fight, a Harry Potter costume party, and a photography-while-jogging class. Could the movie have dug deeper for a more complicated situational comedy? Yes. Could the inevitable romantic crisis at the beginning of act III have been more original? Yes. Could the writers and director have extracted a more profound message on how to live life? Yes. Could this have been a better film? Yes.
But the movie made me laugh and so it goes.
Rating:
On a scale of one to Casablanca this film is a “Easy Money” (1983)
Rationalization:
Watching Jim Carey, like watching Rodney Dangerfield, is like putting on a really comfortable, old shoe. You generally know what’s coming but you know you’ll be amused. Sure, I’d say “Liar, Liar” is a better movie than “Yes Man” just like “Back to School” is a better movie than “Easy Money” but in some respects comparing these movies is like splitting hairs. What you see is what you get and what you get is pretty entertaining. So, if you can’t say ‘yes’ to this movie you might want to say ‘why not?’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)