A Serious Man
Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen
Venue: Landmark Sunshine Cinema, Theater 1
Review Date: October 3rd, 2009
I have always had a love-hate relationship with the Coen Brothers. I loved Oh, Brother, Where art thou?, The Man Who Wasn't There, and Fargo. The Big Lebowski and No Country For Old Men did very little for me. I hated Burn After Reading. I admit an ignorance to their early work, but I have a deep admiration for Coen Brothers. They are brilliant craftsman, and regardless of content, their films are extremely well composed. A Serious Man is no exception, in content nor in craft.
A Serious Man takes place over a series of weeks in a small Minnesota town in 1967. It details the collapse of the life of Larry Gopnik (played by theatre actor Michael Stuhlbarg, whom I was lucky enough to see play Hamlet last year in the Public Theatre's stunning production). Gopnik is a University Physics professor, a Jew, and a man who seems to never be aware of what is happening around him. His son is a pot-smoking, F-Troop-watching slacker quickly approaching his bar mitzvah. His daughter is stealing money from his wallet to fund a nose job. His constantly pouting wife(Sari Lennick, another unknown) is having an affair with serious man Sy Abelman, and his umemployed, couch-borrowing brother is constantly draining the cyst on his neck. When his tenure is threatened by blackmail, and his wife asks him for a divorce, things really start to unravel for Larry.
Sounds simple enough, but the Coen Brothers are masters of plot and irony, and they manage to bring all these elements together gracefully, hilariously, and painfully. They have written their own Job story; how much abuse can a religious man who strives only to be good take before he loses it? That's what is explored here through breathtaking cinematography (The incomparable Roger Deakins), wonderful pacing, tight performances, and strong music choices. The Coens make every shot count, and there are layers and layers to reflect upon. Take the school bully chasing down Larry's son for weed money every day after school. At first, this image plays as comedy, another moment of relief in a very dark (albeit funny) affair. But look closer, stick through to the end, and the image has an indescribable pathos that only lodges itself in your brain upon reflection. Images from the film keep coming back to me. As usual with the Coens, there's a lot of ambiguity here, and they exploit it for everything it is worth.
The technical work is magnificent, but the acting more than equals it. Stuhlbarg has somewhat of a one-note character here, but the variety and commitment which he brings to is magnificent. Richard King, as Larry's brother Arthur, brings a sadness to his usual goofy and irritating persona. Fred Melamed does comedic masterwork as the adulterer Abelman. The supporting work is a wonder; we get a sense of community and down home provincialism. It's a wonderfully constructed world.
With A Serious Man, the Coen Brothers have delivered a film that is equal to their best work. It is both hilarious and tragic, and should be remembered in the winter awards season.
4.5/5
10/6/09
10/3/09
NYFF:Antichrist
Antichrist
Director: Lars Von Trier
Venue: Starr Theater, Alice Tully Hall, Lincoln Center
(New York Film Festival '09)
Review date: October 2nd, 2009
Before I offer my feelings on Antichrist, I should speak of my reverence for director Lars Von Trier. Von Trier, a Dane, stands as my favorite filmmaker and a huge influence. Dogville, Breaking The Waves, and The Idiots are masterworks. Dancer in the Dark, Manderlay, and The Boss of It All stand slightly below, but are still wonderful motion pictures.
Throughout his work Lars Von Trier has continually made films about men and women. Each of his films include a key relationship involving a man and a woman. More often than not, the woman is an idealist and the man has lost (or never had) his ideals. He has explored these relationships through Greek theatre (Medea), musicals (Dancer in The Dark), melodrama (Dogville, Manderlay) and comedy (The Idiots, The Boss of It All).
Now he has turned to horror for his latest work. Born out of a self-admitted depression, Von Trier's Antichrist bears all the marks of a Von Trier film (beautiful composition mixed with jerky handheld work, density of idea, extreme emotion), but it is by far his purest, most simple film yet. He has paired his theme of man vs. woman down to a story of a couple (literally called He and She), and the process of recovery after their son's death. She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) has become irrational and depressed, and He (Willem Dafoe), an educated and self-assured psychologist, decides that She needs to face her fear. He asks her where she is most scared, and she replies Eden, a forest in which the couple own a cabin (the location of Eden is never clearly established; we are led to believe, based on an envelope, that we are somewhere near Seattle, WA). Once there, He tries to help She face her fear, which leads to chaos, fear, and, ultimately, violence.
It's hard to describe Antichrist in a way that would do justice to the experience of seeing this film; simply put, it is the most harrowing experiences I have ever had in the cinema. The imagery, sound, and extreme violence create a tension that never lets up. At times, I felt myself chuckling, yet there is nothing truly funny about this film (Von Trier has a great sense of humor, and the movie has some laughs, however trying and unclear). I dreaded every second of tension as the film built to its climax. When it concluded, I felt lighter, thrilled, and purged. It was a cathartic experience.
Antichrist's complexity of theme and emotion at times threaten to swallow up the work, yet never do thanks to the precise work of the production team(The sound design is staggering; Anthony Dod Mantle's camera work is, as always, stunning) and the incredible performance of Charlotte Gainsbourg. It is a fearless, moving, and challenging portrait of a woman in grief whose behavior becomes terrifying and incomprehensible. It is an incredible screen performance, and should be remembered come award season. Equal credit must be given to Willem Dafoe for his equally powerful work in a somewhat thankless role.
Yet what this film, and all his films, really boils down to is Von Trier. He is an imaginative and provocative writer-director, and, with this film, he has once again proved his fearlessness. It is brazenly noncommercial, complex (a later blog entry may be devoted to the film's thematic content. It is far too large to be discussed here.), visceral, and challenging. Does everything about the film work? No. There is occasionally clunky dialogue and the film requires a second viewing to digest it's ideas and imagery. The tonal shifts are incredibly strong and hard to take, but ultimately part of what makes the experience so rewarding and cathartic. It is, without a doubt, a milestone in adult oriented cinema and probably Von Trier's most important film.
5/5
Director: Lars Von Trier
Venue: Starr Theater, Alice Tully Hall, Lincoln Center
(New York Film Festival '09)
Review date: October 2nd, 2009
Before I offer my feelings on Antichrist, I should speak of my reverence for director Lars Von Trier. Von Trier, a Dane, stands as my favorite filmmaker and a huge influence. Dogville, Breaking The Waves, and The Idiots are masterworks. Dancer in the Dark, Manderlay, and The Boss of It All stand slightly below, but are still wonderful motion pictures.
Throughout his work Lars Von Trier has continually made films about men and women. Each of his films include a key relationship involving a man and a woman. More often than not, the woman is an idealist and the man has lost (or never had) his ideals. He has explored these relationships through Greek theatre (Medea), musicals (Dancer in The Dark), melodrama (Dogville, Manderlay) and comedy (The Idiots, The Boss of It All).
Now he has turned to horror for his latest work. Born out of a self-admitted depression, Von Trier's Antichrist bears all the marks of a Von Trier film (beautiful composition mixed with jerky handheld work, density of idea, extreme emotion), but it is by far his purest, most simple film yet. He has paired his theme of man vs. woman down to a story of a couple (literally called He and She), and the process of recovery after their son's death. She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) has become irrational and depressed, and He (Willem Dafoe), an educated and self-assured psychologist, decides that She needs to face her fear. He asks her where she is most scared, and she replies Eden, a forest in which the couple own a cabin (the location of Eden is never clearly established; we are led to believe, based on an envelope, that we are somewhere near Seattle, WA). Once there, He tries to help She face her fear, which leads to chaos, fear, and, ultimately, violence.
It's hard to describe Antichrist in a way that would do justice to the experience of seeing this film; simply put, it is the most harrowing experiences I have ever had in the cinema. The imagery, sound, and extreme violence create a tension that never lets up. At times, I felt myself chuckling, yet there is nothing truly funny about this film (Von Trier has a great sense of humor, and the movie has some laughs, however trying and unclear). I dreaded every second of tension as the film built to its climax. When it concluded, I felt lighter, thrilled, and purged. It was a cathartic experience.
Antichrist's complexity of theme and emotion at times threaten to swallow up the work, yet never do thanks to the precise work of the production team(The sound design is staggering; Anthony Dod Mantle's camera work is, as always, stunning) and the incredible performance of Charlotte Gainsbourg. It is a fearless, moving, and challenging portrait of a woman in grief whose behavior becomes terrifying and incomprehensible. It is an incredible screen performance, and should be remembered come award season. Equal credit must be given to Willem Dafoe for his equally powerful work in a somewhat thankless role.
Yet what this film, and all his films, really boils down to is Von Trier. He is an imaginative and provocative writer-director, and, with this film, he has once again proved his fearlessness. It is brazenly noncommercial, complex (a later blog entry may be devoted to the film's thematic content. It is far too large to be discussed here.), visceral, and challenging. Does everything about the film work? No. There is occasionally clunky dialogue and the film requires a second viewing to digest it's ideas and imagery. The tonal shifts are incredibly strong and hard to take, but ultimately part of what makes the experience so rewarding and cathartic. It is, without a doubt, a milestone in adult oriented cinema and probably Von Trier's most important film.
5/5
10/1/09
Classic Review: The Steamroller and the Violin.
Katok i skripka
The Steamroller and the Violin
(1960)
Director: Andrei Tarkovsky
Andrei Tarkovsky is a not a well known filmmaker in the U.S., outside of those with a keen interest in cinema. His most famous feature is probably Solaris (1972), due to the fact that it was recently remade by Steven Soderberg and George Clooney.
On the international scene, however, Tarkovsky is a legend. His films are provocative, deeply spiritual, and beautiful. They are also notorious for being slow moving, occasionally inert, and challenging in their intellectualism.
I have struggled my way through much of Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev and Stalker before, mostly unsuccessfully, and so I have decided to watch his films in chronological order to try and find a new way to appreciate them.
I've begun with Steamroller and the Violin, a mosfilm production that Tarkovsky made in 1960 as his diploma film. It is a student film, and this is often evident from the level of production. However, it is a wonderful film, and very indicative of where Tarkovsky would go in the future.
Steamroller and the Violin details one day in the life of Sasha, a seven year old musician. Sasha plays the violin, and it is his goal in life (pushed by his mother) to become a professional violinist. It is clear, however, that Sasha has other aspirations, and these include daydreaming and wandering (a beautiful kaleidoscopic early in the film shows us his imagination in full blossom). When leaving the house one morning, he is harassed by several of the local boys who spitefully call him 'musician.' He is saved by Sergei, a local worker who operates the steamroller that is doing construction outside the block of flats where Sasha lives. From this early interaction, the two strike up a friendship which the film details in simple, lyrical, and wistful ways.
Tarkovsky's work is often comprised of long, colorful, and dreamily shots heavy with atmosphere and symbolism. Steamroller and the violin is no exception. It is beautifully and meaningfully composed, and many seemingly mundane objects completely steal your attention throughout. He uses his simple story as a springboard for a deeper exploration of the things we are lacking in our lives, and the strangeness of our daily existence.
Of course, being a student film, there are aspects of the production that feel amateurish. There are editing guffaws and odd sound problems, but the film doesn't feel dated, and, at 43 minutes, is not one of Tarkovsky's more challenging efforts.
Tarkovsky was a great filmmaker; his films feel like a dream, and Steamroller and the Violin showed him off to a great start. Highly recommended. The film is available on Netflix.
4/5
Next up: Ivan's Childhood.
The Steamroller and the Violin
(1960)
Director: Andrei Tarkovsky
Andrei Tarkovsky is a not a well known filmmaker in the U.S., outside of those with a keen interest in cinema. His most famous feature is probably Solaris (1972), due to the fact that it was recently remade by Steven Soderberg and George Clooney.
On the international scene, however, Tarkovsky is a legend. His films are provocative, deeply spiritual, and beautiful. They are also notorious for being slow moving, occasionally inert, and challenging in their intellectualism.
I have struggled my way through much of Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev and Stalker before, mostly unsuccessfully, and so I have decided to watch his films in chronological order to try and find a new way to appreciate them.
I've begun with Steamroller and the Violin, a mosfilm production that Tarkovsky made in 1960 as his diploma film. It is a student film, and this is often evident from the level of production. However, it is a wonderful film, and very indicative of where Tarkovsky would go in the future.
Steamroller and the Violin details one day in the life of Sasha, a seven year old musician. Sasha plays the violin, and it is his goal in life (pushed by his mother) to become a professional violinist. It is clear, however, that Sasha has other aspirations, and these include daydreaming and wandering (a beautiful kaleidoscopic early in the film shows us his imagination in full blossom). When leaving the house one morning, he is harassed by several of the local boys who spitefully call him 'musician.' He is saved by Sergei, a local worker who operates the steamroller that is doing construction outside the block of flats where Sasha lives. From this early interaction, the two strike up a friendship which the film details in simple, lyrical, and wistful ways.
Tarkovsky's work is often comprised of long, colorful, and dreamily shots heavy with atmosphere and symbolism. Steamroller and the violin is no exception. It is beautifully and meaningfully composed, and many seemingly mundane objects completely steal your attention throughout. He uses his simple story as a springboard for a deeper exploration of the things we are lacking in our lives, and the strangeness of our daily existence.
Of course, being a student film, there are aspects of the production that feel amateurish. There are editing guffaws and odd sound problems, but the film doesn't feel dated, and, at 43 minutes, is not one of Tarkovsky's more challenging efforts.
Tarkovsky was a great filmmaker; his films feel like a dream, and Steamroller and the Violin showed him off to a great start. Highly recommended. The film is available on Netflix.
4/5
Next up: Ivan's Childhood.
9/5/09
District 9
District 9
Director: Neil Blomkamp.
District 9 has arrived as one of the most anticipated films of the summer, and it's not too hard to see why. It offers an intriguing premise, stunning (and thrillingly real) visual effects, and a very mysterious advertising campaign. The film delivers on many levels, but it is far from the 'masterpiece' that's been hyped for months.
20 years ago, a mysterious spaceship appeared over Johannesburg, South Africa. After three months of no contact from the inhabitants of the ship, the humans on the ground decided to force their way on board. What they found was a group of aliens living in squalor and filth. It was decided by the powers-that-be that the best option would be relocate the aliens to camps on the ground.
Flash forward 20 years. The aliens are once again living in squalor and filth in a slum called District 9. It has been decided that something needs to be done to remedy this situation. Enter MNU (Multi-National United), a corporation that has built District 10, a new facility in which to house the alien race, now nicknamed 'Prawns.'
Leading this operation is Wikus Van De Merme, an attention loving bureaucrat clearly in love with the camera following him around.
The first half of the film details MNU's attempt, led by Wikus, to force the prawns out of District 9, and this sequence is astonishing. It's very clear from the potency of images (District 9 calls to mind images as far reaching as the camps in Schindler's List to the ragged images of Sao Paolo in City of God) and immediacy of the camerawork that Blomkamp is not giving us the average science fiction film. He's engaging us politically, socially, and emotionally. The ineffectiveness and arrogance of the MNU agents is hilarious, and Sharlto Copley's performance as Wikus is top notch (credit must be given to Copley for turning a seemingly simple character into much more).
The tension in this sequence builds until an inevitable confrontation between Wikus' team and a group of aliens, who are trying to hide a mysterious liquid whose purpose is unknown. The liquid causes Wikus to develop alien features, and so he becomes a fugitive.
This sequence, as well as the brief sequence where Wikus is forced to use his new abilities to demonstrate alien weaponry, are absolutely brilliant. Science fiction at it's allegorical best. However, once Wikus escapes and is on the run, the film loses not only it's momentum, but also it's political engagement, it's unique perspective (the documentary style disappears, which is an utter mistake and a huge inconsistency in what has been previous established cinematically), and most of it's originality.
From this point on, District 9 becomes essentially a chase film, with several protracted (and mostly unexciting) set pieces which don't really build to anything. It is interesting to see the desperation of Wikus has he tries to get his life back, and Copley absolutely nails it, but in the end it feels empty. This performance deserves a better film, and a better conclusion.
Overall, District 9 is a disappointment. What begins as social thriller on par with The Constant Gardener devolves quickly into a run of the mill action film. However, Blomkamp is a gifted director, and will be worth watching in the future.
2.5/5
Director: Neil Blomkamp.
District 9 has arrived as one of the most anticipated films of the summer, and it's not too hard to see why. It offers an intriguing premise, stunning (and thrillingly real) visual effects, and a very mysterious advertising campaign. The film delivers on many levels, but it is far from the 'masterpiece' that's been hyped for months.
20 years ago, a mysterious spaceship appeared over Johannesburg, South Africa. After three months of no contact from the inhabitants of the ship, the humans on the ground decided to force their way on board. What they found was a group of aliens living in squalor and filth. It was decided by the powers-that-be that the best option would be relocate the aliens to camps on the ground.
Flash forward 20 years. The aliens are once again living in squalor and filth in a slum called District 9. It has been decided that something needs to be done to remedy this situation. Enter MNU (Multi-National United), a corporation that has built District 10, a new facility in which to house the alien race, now nicknamed 'Prawns.'
Leading this operation is Wikus Van De Merme, an attention loving bureaucrat clearly in love with the camera following him around.
The first half of the film details MNU's attempt, led by Wikus, to force the prawns out of District 9, and this sequence is astonishing. It's very clear from the potency of images (District 9 calls to mind images as far reaching as the camps in Schindler's List to the ragged images of Sao Paolo in City of God) and immediacy of the camerawork that Blomkamp is not giving us the average science fiction film. He's engaging us politically, socially, and emotionally. The ineffectiveness and arrogance of the MNU agents is hilarious, and Sharlto Copley's performance as Wikus is top notch (credit must be given to Copley for turning a seemingly simple character into much more).
The tension in this sequence builds until an inevitable confrontation between Wikus' team and a group of aliens, who are trying to hide a mysterious liquid whose purpose is unknown. The liquid causes Wikus to develop alien features, and so he becomes a fugitive.
This sequence, as well as the brief sequence where Wikus is forced to use his new abilities to demonstrate alien weaponry, are absolutely brilliant. Science fiction at it's allegorical best. However, once Wikus escapes and is on the run, the film loses not only it's momentum, but also it's political engagement, it's unique perspective (the documentary style disappears, which is an utter mistake and a huge inconsistency in what has been previous established cinematically), and most of it's originality.
From this point on, District 9 becomes essentially a chase film, with several protracted (and mostly unexciting) set pieces which don't really build to anything. It is interesting to see the desperation of Wikus has he tries to get his life back, and Copley absolutely nails it, but in the end it feels empty. This performance deserves a better film, and a better conclusion.
Overall, District 9 is a disappointment. What begins as social thriller on par with The Constant Gardener devolves quickly into a run of the mill action film. However, Blomkamp is a gifted director, and will be worth watching in the future.
2.5/5
6/29/09
Tetro
Tetro
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Tetro, the latest film from Francis Ford Coppola, is a magnificent head-scratcher. Operatic in scope, huge in ambition, technically stunning, it's also occasionally inert, slow moving, and confusing.
The story isn't totally fresh. 17 year old Bennie (Alden Ehrenreich) has landed at the port of Buenos Aires, Argentina. His ship has been a victim of a technical mishap, and the week at port will give him a chance to reconnect with his long lost brother Angelo (Vincent Gallo, somewhat restrained compared to his usual work). Angelo left the family for undisclosed reason, though they stem partially from the disconnect between him and their world famous composer father Carlo Tetrocini. Angelo, now known as Tetro, seems to do little else than mop around the apartment he shares with his beautiful Spanish wife Miranda (Maribel Verdu, whose wonderful performance helps anchor the film and gives a humanity missing in other areas), work lights at a local theatre, and avoids talking about his life and his previous aspirations as a writer. The arrival of Benny into Tetro's life causes problems he can't foresee. When Benny starts to snoop around Tetro's writing, the movie's conflicts begin to come to life...
At one point in his career, Francis Ford Coppola's ambition was unmatched in American film making. The exemplification of this ambition, Apocalypse Now, is cited by many as the last time an auteur film was made by an American. In the tradition of cinematic greats like Kurosawa, Fellini, and Bertolucci, Coppola's technical prowess is only matched by his desire to fill his work with as much emotion and energy as possible.
However, as time progressed Coppola worked less and less. He began to focus on smaller stories and more crowd pleasers. Films like Jack, Dracula, and The Rainmaker were mostly unsuccessful and unimpressive.
Like 2007's Youth Without Youth, Tetro seems to be an attempt for the once legendary Coppola to return to his roots. The film feels like something that should have been made by a 28 year old director fresh out of film school. The present day narrative is shot in pristine digital black and white 2.35:1, while the flashbacks are in color 1.85:1. In addition, there are dance and theatre sequences used to illustrate the stories of Benny and Tetro, some of which are computer graphically enhanced. It's arrestingly beautiful, and should certainly be shortlisted for awards at the end of the year.
Likewise, Coppola explores the conflicts between family in an honest yet highly operatic, further illustrating his desire to make a film which feels closer to his old sensibility. Sequences in the film bring to mind the now classic baptism at the end of The Godfather, and kudos to Coppola for not being afraid to continue to push these boundaries. It's so operatic and theatrical that the film almost feels like it could implode under all that style.
Occasionally, it does. The film feels a bit stagnant at moments, and Gallo's performance never achieves the kind of pathos the film should be reaching for. Also, the structure of the screenplay seems a bit unclear at times. The final few moments feel a bit lost in emotion, and the film never exactly comes back down to Earth.
But these are a small price to play for a film of such beauty and ambition. Coppola's financial Independence puts him in the unique position of making films that couldn't necessarily get produced anywhere else. Let's hope he follows his current obsessions and interests.
4/5
-Liam Billingham
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Tetro, the latest film from Francis Ford Coppola, is a magnificent head-scratcher. Operatic in scope, huge in ambition, technically stunning, it's also occasionally inert, slow moving, and confusing.
The story isn't totally fresh. 17 year old Bennie (Alden Ehrenreich) has landed at the port of Buenos Aires, Argentina. His ship has been a victim of a technical mishap, and the week at port will give him a chance to reconnect with his long lost brother Angelo (Vincent Gallo, somewhat restrained compared to his usual work). Angelo left the family for undisclosed reason, though they stem partially from the disconnect between him and their world famous composer father Carlo Tetrocini. Angelo, now known as Tetro, seems to do little else than mop around the apartment he shares with his beautiful Spanish wife Miranda (Maribel Verdu, whose wonderful performance helps anchor the film and gives a humanity missing in other areas), work lights at a local theatre, and avoids talking about his life and his previous aspirations as a writer. The arrival of Benny into Tetro's life causes problems he can't foresee. When Benny starts to snoop around Tetro's writing, the movie's conflicts begin to come to life...
At one point in his career, Francis Ford Coppola's ambition was unmatched in American film making. The exemplification of this ambition, Apocalypse Now, is cited by many as the last time an auteur film was made by an American. In the tradition of cinematic greats like Kurosawa, Fellini, and Bertolucci, Coppola's technical prowess is only matched by his desire to fill his work with as much emotion and energy as possible.
However, as time progressed Coppola worked less and less. He began to focus on smaller stories and more crowd pleasers. Films like Jack, Dracula, and The Rainmaker were mostly unsuccessful and unimpressive.
Like 2007's Youth Without Youth, Tetro seems to be an attempt for the once legendary Coppola to return to his roots. The film feels like something that should have been made by a 28 year old director fresh out of film school. The present day narrative is shot in pristine digital black and white 2.35:1, while the flashbacks are in color 1.85:1. In addition, there are dance and theatre sequences used to illustrate the stories of Benny and Tetro, some of which are computer graphically enhanced. It's arrestingly beautiful, and should certainly be shortlisted for awards at the end of the year.
Likewise, Coppola explores the conflicts between family in an honest yet highly operatic, further illustrating his desire to make a film which feels closer to his old sensibility. Sequences in the film bring to mind the now classic baptism at the end of The Godfather, and kudos to Coppola for not being afraid to continue to push these boundaries. It's so operatic and theatrical that the film almost feels like it could implode under all that style.
Occasionally, it does. The film feels a bit stagnant at moments, and Gallo's performance never achieves the kind of pathos the film should be reaching for. Also, the structure of the screenplay seems a bit unclear at times. The final few moments feel a bit lost in emotion, and the film never exactly comes back down to Earth.
But these are a small price to play for a film of such beauty and ambition. Coppola's financial Independence puts him in the unique position of making films that couldn't necessarily get produced anywhere else. Let's hope he follows his current obsessions and interests.
4/5
-Liam Billingham
6/28/09
Gran Torino
Gran Torino
Director - Clint Eastwood
June 28, 2009
Racism is not an easy topic to tackle in a film of any kind. Some have succeeded (Spike Lee with Do The Right Thing, though I suppose that dealt with race relations) and some have failed miserably (Paul Haggis' miserable film Crash - one of the worst films I've ever seen). It seems to be difficult to find a balance between telling a story and dealing with an issue that too often gets reduced to cliche and stereotype, resulting in dramatic inertia.
Gran Torino, recently released to video, and directed/starring/produced by Clint Eastwood, has moments of success and failure when it comes to dealing with the subject.
Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski, a Korean war vet and recent widower. It would seem from his gruff exterior and short way with people that Walt loses a lot when his wife dies. He has no close friends save those he shares a Pabst with, and his two grown sons have little idea of how to interact with him. The only thing Walt seems to cherish is his 1972 Ford Gran Torino.
However, a new door opens in Walt's life when he saves the life of Thao, the Hmong boy from next door. Thao is being pressured into joining his cousin's gang, and Walt interrupts an alteraction which spills onto his lawn (in which Eastwood's utters the already classic 'get off my lawn'). As a result of his actions, the Hmong community regards him as a hero, and begins to bring gifts to his home. At first Walt refuses their invitations and gifts, but slowly he begins to spend time with Thao's family, including Thao's sister Sue.
What happens from there on in I will keep to myself but, if you've been paying attention, you shouldn't have any idea predicting where the film is going. Quite frankly, Gran Torino's weakest attribute is it's paint by numbers script and hooky dialogue. At times, it feels like the script has been written by an overly earnest drama student. Some of the writing, coupled with the occasionally painful amature acting, is absolutely cringe worthy.
However, Eastwood comes close to saving the film. His performance, his naturalistic directing (with the exception of a few ridiculous moments), and his no nonsense cinematography somehow manage to cover up the writing by creating convincing moments between characters, an easy going but fluid pace, and some really wonderful comedy. One of the things that pushes this film out of complete mediocrity is Eastwood's amazing racist tirades. He tackles these speeches with complete and utter conviction, upping the comedy and offensive quality to an almost unbearable degree. His performance is funny and painful, and a great look at the futility and ridiculousness of holding prejudice in the modern world. If Crash had a performance like Eastwood's, it could have been more than the dreck it is.
Lastly, credit must be given to Eastwood and his film for choosing to highlight a specific culture living within the USA: The Hmong culture. The film seems to have taken great pains to explore the cuisine, culture, and family life of this South East Asian people, and this manages to lift the film (somewhat) above the simple cliche of racism in America. We are given an insight into a culture we know nothing about, and it strengthens the film's goals, story, and complexity.
However, in the end, these strong points can't save the film. Gran Torino has so much going for it, but it's hamstrung by a script written for a community theatre production or propoganda play. If the script had been stronger, we would have an American classic on our hands. As it stands, it will rest as one of Eastwood's minor works.
2.5/5
-Liam Billingham
Director - Clint Eastwood
June 28, 2009
Racism is not an easy topic to tackle in a film of any kind. Some have succeeded (Spike Lee with Do The Right Thing, though I suppose that dealt with race relations) and some have failed miserably (Paul Haggis' miserable film Crash - one of the worst films I've ever seen). It seems to be difficult to find a balance between telling a story and dealing with an issue that too often gets reduced to cliche and stereotype, resulting in dramatic inertia.
Gran Torino, recently released to video, and directed/starring/produced by Clint Eastwood, has moments of success and failure when it comes to dealing with the subject.
Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski, a Korean war vet and recent widower. It would seem from his gruff exterior and short way with people that Walt loses a lot when his wife dies. He has no close friends save those he shares a Pabst with, and his two grown sons have little idea of how to interact with him. The only thing Walt seems to cherish is his 1972 Ford Gran Torino.
However, a new door opens in Walt's life when he saves the life of Thao, the Hmong boy from next door. Thao is being pressured into joining his cousin's gang, and Walt interrupts an alteraction which spills onto his lawn (in which Eastwood's utters the already classic 'get off my lawn'). As a result of his actions, the Hmong community regards him as a hero, and begins to bring gifts to his home. At first Walt refuses their invitations and gifts, but slowly he begins to spend time with Thao's family, including Thao's sister Sue.
What happens from there on in I will keep to myself but, if you've been paying attention, you shouldn't have any idea predicting where the film is going. Quite frankly, Gran Torino's weakest attribute is it's paint by numbers script and hooky dialogue. At times, it feels like the script has been written by an overly earnest drama student. Some of the writing, coupled with the occasionally painful amature acting, is absolutely cringe worthy.
However, Eastwood comes close to saving the film. His performance, his naturalistic directing (with the exception of a few ridiculous moments), and his no nonsense cinematography somehow manage to cover up the writing by creating convincing moments between characters, an easy going but fluid pace, and some really wonderful comedy. One of the things that pushes this film out of complete mediocrity is Eastwood's amazing racist tirades. He tackles these speeches with complete and utter conviction, upping the comedy and offensive quality to an almost unbearable degree. His performance is funny and painful, and a great look at the futility and ridiculousness of holding prejudice in the modern world. If Crash had a performance like Eastwood's, it could have been more than the dreck it is.
Lastly, credit must be given to Eastwood and his film for choosing to highlight a specific culture living within the USA: The Hmong culture. The film seems to have taken great pains to explore the cuisine, culture, and family life of this South East Asian people, and this manages to lift the film (somewhat) above the simple cliche of racism in America. We are given an insight into a culture we know nothing about, and it strengthens the film's goals, story, and complexity.
However, in the end, these strong points can't save the film. Gran Torino has so much going for it, but it's hamstrung by a script written for a community theatre production or propoganda play. If the script had been stronger, we would have an American classic on our hands. As it stands, it will rest as one of Eastwood's minor works.
2.5/5
-Liam Billingham
6/7/09
'Up' - June 5, 2009
UP
Pixar Studios
Director: Pete Docter/Bob Peterson.
Pixar. Few studios have names so commonly associated with both critical and commercial successes. It all began with Toy Story, which was followed up with such hits as A Bug's Life, The Incredibles, Cars (which I think is an overrated disaster), Toy Story 2, and last year's amazing Wall E.
Pixar has reinvented the wheel for what animated cinema can do. Increasingly, they've found denser and more interesting ways to deal with complex ideas that never pander to children. They seem to understand that kids understand life's complexities as clearly as adults, and this has brought them their success.
In reaching for mature thematic issues and storytelling while still maintaining an air of fun absurdity, 'UP', Pixar's latest, is no different. It tells the story of Carl Frederickson, once a young spirited adventure loving man, now a crotchety old man, heartbroken from the loss of his life long love Elie. The film's opening sequence, simultaneously the film's best and most manipulative passage, shows us Elie and Carl's first encounter in an abandoned old home now being used as Elie's play space, to their marriage, loss of a child, and finally, Elie's passing. It is an extremely effective piece of visual story telling, which utilizes repeating motifs and images to give you a picture of a life lived together, and finally allows you to grieve at the loss of that life. However, it is so simplistically emotional that I found myself feeling slightly used. However, this is, after all, a kid's movie.
The movie picks up with Carl living out his days in isolation from the rest of the world. His neighborhood is being torn down around him, and his only visitor is Russell, an enthusiastic and plump 8 year old trying to earn his 'assisting the elderly' merit badge. Carl, however, has little patience for him.
When an altercation between Carl and a construction worker puts Carl in line for a retirement home, he comes up with a bold scheme. Using helium balloons from his days as a balloon salesman, he decides to fly his home to Paradise Falls, an amazing and picturesque location in Venezuela. However, he finds a stowaway: Russell, who has ended up on the porch while trying to earn his final merit badge. From here, the adventure gets underway. I will save the rest of the details for the viewer.
The first question that must be answered is: Is 'Up' worth seeing? Absolutely. It is as enjoyable, funny (though parents be warned - there's a lot of pain here), and engaging as any film Pixar has made. That being said, does Up belong on the stage with Pixar's best work? No, it does not. The thematic complexities of The Incredibles and Wall E cannot be found here. It instead falls closer to the simple but sweet films Finding Nemo and Ratatouille. It is, in fact, much too close to them.
Let me explain. Finding Nemo deals with the pain of loss through an enjoyable adventure in much the same way Up does, and Ratatouille's story of the underdog achieving a dream and finding his place are both themes explored in Up. It seems to me that Pixar is just repeating itself, and the film becomes less exciting and thrilling for it. I never found myself on the edge of my seat like I did with those earlier films, and for all it's emotional complexity, I found myself much less engaged as a result.
Another reason for this is the script. Up is a film that wants to create both pathos and laughs, but it's a bit too broad in both categories. At times, the combination of talking dogs, strange birds, and two battling septuagenarians seems to fly way off into the absurd, and doesn't feel rooted. The universe that these characters live isn't as rigorously or clearly defined as in Pixar's other films, and so we're not sure what world we're in.
To their credit, Pixar has made a highly enjoyable film, and box office numbers seem to be illustrating it's success, but I think it would be wise for them to search for some new ideas in their coming features, and make sure they're creating entirely credible and defined worlds like they have done so successfully in the past.
3/5
-Liam Billingham
Pixar Studios
Director: Pete Docter/Bob Peterson.
Pixar. Few studios have names so commonly associated with both critical and commercial successes. It all began with Toy Story, which was followed up with such hits as A Bug's Life, The Incredibles, Cars (which I think is an overrated disaster), Toy Story 2, and last year's amazing Wall E.
Pixar has reinvented the wheel for what animated cinema can do. Increasingly, they've found denser and more interesting ways to deal with complex ideas that never pander to children. They seem to understand that kids understand life's complexities as clearly as adults, and this has brought them their success.
In reaching for mature thematic issues and storytelling while still maintaining an air of fun absurdity, 'UP', Pixar's latest, is no different. It tells the story of Carl Frederickson, once a young spirited adventure loving man, now a crotchety old man, heartbroken from the loss of his life long love Elie. The film's opening sequence, simultaneously the film's best and most manipulative passage, shows us Elie and Carl's first encounter in an abandoned old home now being used as Elie's play space, to their marriage, loss of a child, and finally, Elie's passing. It is an extremely effective piece of visual story telling, which utilizes repeating motifs and images to give you a picture of a life lived together, and finally allows you to grieve at the loss of that life. However, it is so simplistically emotional that I found myself feeling slightly used. However, this is, after all, a kid's movie.
The movie picks up with Carl living out his days in isolation from the rest of the world. His neighborhood is being torn down around him, and his only visitor is Russell, an enthusiastic and plump 8 year old trying to earn his 'assisting the elderly' merit badge. Carl, however, has little patience for him.
When an altercation between Carl and a construction worker puts Carl in line for a retirement home, he comes up with a bold scheme. Using helium balloons from his days as a balloon salesman, he decides to fly his home to Paradise Falls, an amazing and picturesque location in Venezuela. However, he finds a stowaway: Russell, who has ended up on the porch while trying to earn his final merit badge. From here, the adventure gets underway. I will save the rest of the details for the viewer.
The first question that must be answered is: Is 'Up' worth seeing? Absolutely. It is as enjoyable, funny (though parents be warned - there's a lot of pain here), and engaging as any film Pixar has made. That being said, does Up belong on the stage with Pixar's best work? No, it does not. The thematic complexities of The Incredibles and Wall E cannot be found here. It instead falls closer to the simple but sweet films Finding Nemo and Ratatouille. It is, in fact, much too close to them.
Let me explain. Finding Nemo deals with the pain of loss through an enjoyable adventure in much the same way Up does, and Ratatouille's story of the underdog achieving a dream and finding his place are both themes explored in Up. It seems to me that Pixar is just repeating itself, and the film becomes less exciting and thrilling for it. I never found myself on the edge of my seat like I did with those earlier films, and for all it's emotional complexity, I found myself much less engaged as a result.
Another reason for this is the script. Up is a film that wants to create both pathos and laughs, but it's a bit too broad in both categories. At times, the combination of talking dogs, strange birds, and two battling septuagenarians seems to fly way off into the absurd, and doesn't feel rooted. The universe that these characters live isn't as rigorously or clearly defined as in Pixar's other films, and so we're not sure what world we're in.
To their credit, Pixar has made a highly enjoyable film, and box office numbers seem to be illustrating it's success, but I think it would be wise for them to search for some new ideas in their coming features, and make sure they're creating entirely credible and defined worlds like they have done so successfully in the past.
3/5
-Liam Billingham
5/17/09
Star Trek - May 17, 2009
Star Trek
Director: J.J. Abrams
Let me begin the proceedings by saying that I am not a Trekkie. I enjoyed a (very) brief period of interest around the time of First Contact, but it didn't last long. Star Trek always seemed to me to be the less cool sibling of Star Wars, albeit older. However, the reboot caught me attention based on the involvement of TV Wunderkid JJ Abrams, who only previously directed an entry in the Mission: Impossible cannon (3, far better than 2, not as interesting as 1).
Abrams involvement guarantees a few changes in the Star Trek universe. For one thing, the cool factor would be turned up, and two, the philosophical underpinnings, always a (great) feature of the Star Trek universe, would be replaced with white knuckle action.
I'm mostly happy to report these changes have been implemented. Star Trek is one of the best main stream action/sci-fi films in a long time, and a huge step up from George Lucas' tepid Star Wars prequels.
The story is simple enough, and mostly unimportant: a time warp has allowed angry Romulan Nero (Eric Bana, mostly forgettable) to travel back in time to get revenge on Spock (played here by both Leonard Nimoy, who brings gravitas, and Heroes star Zachary Quinto), both past and present. He manages to arrive just in time to destroy the USS Kelvin, captained by none other than George Kirk, who sacrifices himself to save his crew, wife, and unborn son James (named in the film's most ridiculously melodramatic sequence). Thereafter, we watch Kirk's (Chris Pine) rebellious upbringing, and, simultaneously, the difficult upbringing of half-Vulcan/half Human Spock. It's all very vague and empy, but kudos to Quinto for bring pathos to the melodrama.
The film picks up once Kirk, Spock, Bones (Karl Urban, who seems to be having fun) head to Star fleet and hastily end up aboard the Enterprise to save a distressed ship. Kirk and Spock, whose tenuous relationship is based on some hooey with a space simulator (for all their fame, Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman are two very lazy screenwriters), have to come to terms with one another in order to lead the Enterprise to victory.
From there on, we're introduced to the series mainstays, and the movie really starts to fly. The cinematography and sound design, so haphazard in the film's opening sequence (I found myself utterly confused by Abrams intensely tight cinematography, and a lack of cohesion in editing), come together magnificently for the second and third acts, and the actors aren't slouches either. Sulu (John Cho), Chekov(Anton Yelchin), Uhura (Zoe Saldana), and Scotty (Simon Pegg) all are highly energetic and engaging, and help dust off the mothballs from the series. Of all of these young actors, Quinto earn high marks for finding the rage, love, and humor behind a very withdrawn exterior. His performance, along with the action, is the reason to see this film. Pine acquits himself well, though there's not much there, to the character nor the performance. Bana is wasted in a terrible role.
However, credit must be given to Abrams and his team for creating a highly energetic film. In this age of reboots either unnecessary or overly dark, this film succeeds by being funny, highly engaging, and 2 hours of mindless summer fun. Is this what we should expect from Star Trek? Maybe not, but it's not going to get much better than this.
3/5
5/14/09
The birth of a blog...
Hello All,
This blog is an attempt to offer my thoughts and opinions on films I see. I have begun it in the hopes of writing more, articulating more clearly, and to increase my knowledge and ability to discuss film in an interesting and lucid way. Please feel free to comment on any of my reviews if you hold a similar or opposing view.
The first review, to be published sometime this week, will be of J.J. Abrams Star Trek.
This blog is an attempt to offer my thoughts and opinions on films I see. I have begun it in the hopes of writing more, articulating more clearly, and to increase my knowledge and ability to discuss film in an interesting and lucid way. Please feel free to comment on any of my reviews if you hold a similar or opposing view.
The first review, to be published sometime this week, will be of J.J. Abrams Star Trek.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
