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
6/29/09
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
