Finding Dory

Finding Dory is…fine. It’s cute. It’s just not Finding Nemo, and that’s its greatest hurdle and biggest lack. It’s impossible to see this film on its own terms, as it, in title, in plot, and in character, depends on the earlier film for its backstory and springboard. It generally wouldn’t be fair to compare the two, except that the film’s raison d’ être is the financial and emotional success of the 2003 film.

The filmmakers are clearly trying to fill the piece with the little pieces of magic that Pixar knows how to do—that little last word in a scene, that final gesture that separates the good from the great in animated films of this kind. And the gags are cute and funny. They’re just not connected well to the rest of the film, and add little to it.

The reasons the shoes of Nemo don’t quite fit Dory are many. First, Pixar has taken the main characters (Nemo and Marlin) and made them supporting characters, and have made the main supporting character the lead. Because Dory was such a part of the success of the first film, it might have made sense to make her the star this time. The greatest success of this decision is what is getting the most press—the issue of disability and how it can be either overcome or seen as a strength. That’s a theme that is at least secondary or tertiary here, and keeps running under the main plot point of an adult trying to find her parents. It’s a delightful color to add under the story; pulling it out as a lesson wrenches the film in a direction that is more mind than heart, a weight this film doesn’t need to begin with.

The emotional center of Finding Nemo was almost too strong—parents in search of their child. If handled indelicately, Nemo might have been gut wrenching. The humor and energy of the forward-moving action kept that “parents’ worst nightmare” aspect of the film in check. But that ache informed the film from beginning to end, and the film resonated with unspoken angst throughout, enriching the whole film. Dory’s switch to the (grown and successful) child finding her parents just doesn’t have the same elemental anguish underneath it. We care—just not as much.

The best decision of the filmmakers was to keep Marlin (Albert Brooks) and Nemo (Alexander Gould then, Hayden Rolence here) front and center here. Marlin’s dark but realist perspectives helped ground the first film, and do the same thing here, providing the contrast not to a young Nemo, but to a “disabled” Dory. Ellen DeGeneres’s Dory is not the supporting, humorous accent set against a cartoon version of a crisis, but is now the lead, and hence must be less the comic relief than the dramatic center. DeGeneres does well, but the reshaping of the character isn’t quite as successful as it might have seemed on paper.

The film is also darker than its predecessor—not quite The Empire Strikes Back or Godfather II darker, but almost. It’s certainly darker in tone, though less engaging emotionally. It’s also darker visually, with a surprising number of scenes on the grey side. The gorgeous, delightful, colorful ocean surprises that were part of Nemo’s charm aren’t here in the same degree.

We revisit a few of the earlier characters, but the impact of discovery is necessarily missing from Dory, and some of the meet-ups seem perfunctory. The new ones are…fine. There is also the change in set from the wide-open ocean—a source of all kinds of dangers and wonders—to a marine conservatory, which is far more limited in scope, and far less primordial in its dangers. The stakes seem smaller, along with the setting.

Of course the marketing machine that is Disney will make sure this is a huge hit, and most children will love it. For those interested in how to do a sequel, and how not to, this is a great study. Sometimes certain films just fall out of my head once they are over; I must confess that this one occasionally put me to sleep.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Two Days, One Night (Deux jours, une nuit)

Watching Two Days, One Night was a great antidote to having just seen X-Men: Apocalypse, a dreadful, action-packed, CGI extravaganza (see https://film-prof.com/tag/x-men-apocalypse/). To slip into my teacher mode, Two Days, One Night is a realist film. In a nutshell, that means no fancy camera moves, no background music, no quick editing, no big emotional close-ups or breathtaking epic long shots. It also means long uninterrupted takes, a great sense of space, a heavy dependence on the actors and a sense of power that tends to build slowly rather than in bursts.

I wanted to see the film because of the lead performance by Marion Cotillard, best known on this side of the Atlantic for either winning the Best Actress Award for La Vie en Rose (also known as La Môme)—only one a small handful of foreign-language winners in that category—or for playing Mal in Inception. Her performance in Two Days, One Night was again nominated for Best Actress, and won a slew of other international awards for it.

What I’d forgotten since putting it in my Netflix list was that the film was directed by Belgian brothers Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, the modern masters of realist film (L’Enfant, The Kid with the Bike, and producers of Rust and Bone, another film that brought Cotillard great acclaim). In an age of rapid editing (even in good films like the Bourne series) and loud superhero movies, the work of the Dardenne brothers is what we point to to remind ourselves that neorealism didn’t die with Vittoria DeSica, and that when we speak of realism, we don’t just have to point to Bicycle Thief for a great example.

For most modern moviegoers, realist cinema takes some getting used to. Scenes seem to go on much longer than necessary to get a plot point across. Story isn’t the only thing that matters. Big loud events and powerful emotional scenes are scarce. But the accumulating emotional heft these films carry can often go much deeper into the mind and heart than more formalist films. Looking back to 2007, my two favorite films of that year were Ratatouille and 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days, a devastating Romanian film that might have been the most powerful film of that year. (Yes, I agree that’s a strange combination of favorite films.) Realist films are a whole different experience for those used to our energetic, story-driven films, but the good ones are well worth the investment.

Once I settled in for a realist experience, I sat back to enjoy Cotillard. Her stellar performance here is light years away from her intense, flashy and technically brilliant Oscar-winning turn as Edith Piaf in La Vie en Rose. Here she plays Sandra, a just-out-of-depression factory worker who is presented with a devilish work situation: her co-workers can vote for either a much-needed bonus for each of them, or they can vote to bring Sandra back to work. She and her husband are dependent upon her salary, so she spends her weekend trying to convince her co-workers to vote in her favor. That’s it—that’s the plot. But as in most realist films, the plot really isn’t the main point, though the film builds in intensity as the characters get down to the wire. Sandra is not always likable, though always sympathetic. Cotillard inhabits the character deeply and internally. There are no star turns, and the furniture remains unchewed. Though there are significant actions, there are no “big moments.” But her underplaying and soft grace notes make the ending that much more impacting.

The many visits to co-workers give a lot of actors a moment to either make or break the film. Most visits are logical, and the reactions—both positive and negative—are played believably. There is one emotional moment that earns its feelings, but there is another one (spoiler alert) that becomes a subplot that is played too hard and results in too dramatic a life change. But they are woven together well at the end in a way that is satisfying on several levels.

Cotillard is simply one of the greats working today, and her American films simply don’t reflect her talent. Try this one, then try La Vie en Rose, and realize once more what excellent acting can look like.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

X-Men Apocalypse

The newest X-men offering is pretty terrible. Its estimated $178 million dollar budget is a tragic waste, as is the 2.5 hours of time anyone gives to it. I’m sure there are lessons to be learned at some point, but the only lesson for viewers now is to stay away—you’ve been warned.

Where do I start? The script is a mess. The story is essentially the Mummy meets the Mutants. Right off the start, it feels old and derivative—move on, nothing to see here. Though there is a through line to the story, you’d hardly know it, with so many subplots (if they are worthy of the name) and enough climaxes to fill an entire franchise of films. If this is a reboot, it only works on paper.

The only actor we could care about is Nicholas Hoult’s Hank/Beast. If he’d been at the center of the story throughout, the film might have had a heart and a chance. But then they turn him blue and put him on the sidelines. The loss is palpable if you’re still paying attention. A talented actor (Warm Bodies, Jack the Giant Slayer, Mad Max: Fury Road), his presence proves that he can carry a film by himself if given the right material.

Many of the other actors are first-rate, and sorely underserved by script and direction. Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy, two of England’s best young artists, try their best in each individual scene, but there is no context created that places that effort into a whole that makes sense out of their hard work. It seems more of a challenge to create a believable world for the Avengers than for the X-men, yet the new Captain America film did it well. Here, everyone and every plotline is so scattered that these fine actors are doing their best in a vacuum. Even Hollywood- and Oscar-favorite Jennifer Lawrence, while not exactly phoning it in, is, shall we say, capable of higher heights. Oscar Isaac—well, we will just concentrate on Star Wars and politely forget about this.

And some of the lines these poor folks have to say! Corny and platitudinous doesn’t even come close. And why, (spoiler alert), oh why, did the producers bother shoehorning Wolverine in for a meaningless and distracting cameo?

I’m not particularly an X-men fan, and only see films like this because I teach film and feel I have to keep up on some of the more popular franchises. The Avengers films are generally stronger, funnier, and far more touching and meaningful than the X-Men series. This one, though, is a reboot on a par with the most recent Fantastic Four attempt. Not worth either your time or reading another word about it.

 

 

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Captain America: Civil War

Captain America: Civil War is overstuffed and not quite believable in its central concept. It’s also the best Avengers movie since the first one.

It does right what the first one does, on steroids. It was a small cinematic miracle in the The Avengers that gave all the characters (and the stars playing them) enough time to round out their identities and superpowers onscreen. It also contained a powerful message about the dynamics of disunity and the power of overcoming those dynamics. So does this film.

Captain America: Civil War packs a great many additional characters into the plot, almost enough to capsize the entire enterprise. But with a strong central grouping of key characters followed by the gradual introduction of other characters—some familiar and some new—the film manages to feature a large variety of superheroes that gives each his/her moment to shine, and somehow figures out a way to fold them into the plot without awkwardly shoehorning them in.

The central conflict, which nearly everyone knows by now, is around the UN control of the Avengers, who have acquired the reputation of dangerous vigilantes who, without proper oversight, are a law unto themselves, and a group that causes just too much collateral damage while saving the world. The two key leaders of the sides are Captain America (Chris Evans) and Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.). The ultimate division of the two groups around the issue is presented logically, but almost comes up as more of a writers’ scenario (“Let’s get them fighting each other like we did in the first film, but more around an issue and less on personalities…”) than an organic development. But only a small suspension of disbelief is necessary, and the arguments are still clear and cogent.

Without going into unnecessary detail on how the groups manage to square off, the film presents scenarios and arguments that can be read in any number of ways. So the film becomes a possible metaphor for:

  • Our current election season
  • America’s role in the world and its perception by other countries
  • Freedom vs. security
  • What it means to be a friend
  • The dangers of globalism, especially in the political realm
  • The naiveté and occasional useless of political leaders
  • And much more

In all these issues, always resting under the narrative and personalities, this superhero film is one of the most thoughtful and stimulating films of the year, addressing or at least stirring up issues that more deliberately provocative dramatic films or documentaries tend to overstate or contort. And all this from a summer superhero blockbuster.

As in most of the Marvel films, the acting is top-notch throughout. The casting of talented actors who don’t phone in their performances is one of the strengths of current superhero films, and we only have a go back a few decades to see how far we’ve come.

One particular strength of the film is the pace and cutting of the action scenes, some of the best of the genre. (Pay attention, Mr. Nolan—plenty to learn here). The action scenes are energetic, not confusing, fast-paced but clear in action, and contain intelligent and not overdone sound editing that enhances and doesn’t distract. Instead of being set pieces that pull apart from the rest of the film, they fit snugly into the narrative and feel of the rest of the film. (Mr. Snyder—plenty to learn here.)

One clear goal—and success—of the first Avengers film was to find a place for all these disparate heroes. The goal is the same in this film, but adds another marketing goal of introducing, or reintroducing, others heroes of the Marvel universe to continue some success, bring in a newbie, or jumpstart a reboot. The most successful introduction is Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), who is brought in gradually and logically, and then fit neatly into the plot. Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) brings a welcome comic presence, but is rather forced in unnaturally and unconvincingly, though the writers have worked him into the plot as well. The clear reboot intentions are around the new Spider-Man (Tom Holland), who is brought in late, but who is given a strong presence, a real place in the plot, and a chance to be funny and juvenile in a way that adds delight to the fight scenes.

The journey in some films from principle to “this time it’s personal” can be groan-inducing. Here, the writers manage to do it with our two central characters that are pitted against one another—Captain America and Iron Man—in a way that makes sense. The main argument about oversight eventually is complicated by a plot revelation that actually means something to the central ideological conflict, and by the time we get to the last major fight scene, the film has found a way to focus the final tensions between these two characters in a way that works.

Other thoughts:

  • Any film that features Marisa Tomei has automatically improved itself. If she is the new Aunt May to Holland’s Spider-Man, this is going to be a stronger reboot than it might have seemed.
  • Elizabeth Olsen still doesn’t seem to have found her character, Scarlet Witch, in the same way everyone else has found theirs.
  • We miss The Hulk, Loki, and Thor.
  • Daniel Bruhl as the “bad guy” is neither small and sniveling enough in the Peter Lorre mold nor large and authoritative enough in the Loki-Darth Vader mold to have his character work completely. A fine actor, he’s just not exuding the right stuff here.
  • The in-jokes are plenty and funny. “Help me, Wanda”—seriously?

The film starts off rather slowly and allows the people and ideas to sink in before moving into the central conflict. The film has some of the coolness of Captain America: The Winter Soldier without that film’s paranoid detachment, and combines that with clear struggles and understandable actions (and action sequences). Once the grosses begin to recede and the superhero nerds (not a term of derision) have moved on, expect that this film will receive more attention and analysis from the more serious critics and thinkers who will discover, some surprisingly, the depth and complexity of the film and its themes.

 

 

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The People v. O.J. Simpson

Sometimes current television is not just better, but so much better, than films playing in the theater. A case in point: “The People v. O.J. Simpson: An American Crime Story,” playing on, of all places, FX. Like the original case itself, the current mini-series will always be a kind of Rorschach test. It will be accused of being too hard on O.J., too soft on him, and racist in one direction or another. But no matter what your opinion is on O.J.’s guilt or innocence, the 10-part series is well worth the watch (Be warned: there is occasional R-rated language).

It’s directed by Ryan Murphy, the creator of Glee, Nip/Tuck, American Horror Story, and Scream Queens. He’s been working a more mainstream route of late, having directed the film version of Eat, Pray, Love and The Normal Heart. “The People vs. OJ Simpson” could, and perhaps would, have benefited from a cooler, less candy-coated visual style. But the quick pacing, editing and camerawork take what could have been a large-scale version of a crime procedural like “Law and Order” and keeps the story moving, even when the trial is stopped or slowed again and again by unforeseen events.

But what really stands out are the focus and the acting. The focus is not on OJ. It’s on Marcia Clark, the head prosecutor. It’s her story, and on paper that sounds like a bad choice. On the contrary, it makes the whole series come alive. Part of the reason for that is the script, which balances the personal with the procedural. The other, bigger, reason is the Emmy-deserving performance of Sarah Paulson as Clark. She is strong, weak, funny, edgy, and completely sympathetic. Paulson doesn’t miss a beat and imbues her character with so much life that she constantly keeps us focused on her and keeps us happy to have her as the center of the drama.

Courtney B. Vance as Johnnie Cochran is excellent as the self-centered, talented, defense lawyer only concerned with winning. I would have put him as the second-best actor in the series after Paulson save for the exceptional work done by Sterling K. Brown as the second counsel, Christopher Darden, who worked alongside Marcia Clark. His performance is as introverted as Vance’s is extraverted, but it’s a star-making turn, fully lived. The sparks between him and Paulson (in more ways than one) are palpable, and they are a delight to watch together. In some ways, Darden, compared to Cochran, is the most difficult character to play well, and another actor might have lost his way with Clark, Vance and the others chewing the scenery around him. Brown doesn’t let that happen for a second.

One of the reasons this got made was the production presence of John Travolta, which of course was tied to his performing a role. Here he plays peacock Robert Shapiro as an effete dandy who clearly thinks the world of himself. It’s an “interesting” acting choice, but one that tends to stick out and not always in the best ways. In a similar manner, Nathan Lane’s F. Lee Bailey isn’t quite on the money, either, as his character has a more serious center than Lane is able to locate. Kenneth Choi as Judge Ito and the ever-reliable Bruce Greenwood as Gil Garcetti are solid, if nothing else.

The two question marks are David Schwimmer as Robert Kardashian, who struggles more and more with the evidence against his good friend. Schwimmer has the advantage of looking something like Kardashian, and his hangdog “charm” helps him as he draws us into his internal conflicts. (Of course it’s a guilty pleasure to see his children pre-fame.)

The biggest acting weakness is Cuba Gooding, Jr. as OJ.. For one, he is nowhere near as physically imposing as OJ, which removes the strong element of his power and strength. Gooding is also at heart an actor we connect with, enjoy, and generally sympathize with. If that were the goal, it might work. But the rest of the show connects us with his guilt and Marcia Clark’s point of view. Like Denzel Washington in Training Day, (and I know I’m in the minority here), Gooding simply doesn’t have the internal scary wickedness necessary for the part. We should be uneasy in his scenes; we’re not. He tries hard, and pulls out all the tricks he has in his arsenal. But it’s not enough, and the clash between actor and character renders him as something of an undefined presence in the piece. It’s the one real weakness in the program.

Of course you know the ending. That doesn’t matter, as this provides information and perspectives that reconstruct the case in the viewer’s mind. We all knew how Titanic ended as well, but a lot of people thought that movie worth seeing, many more than once. “The People vs. OJ Simpson” is easily that exciting, and far more important to our understanding of American justice, race, grandstanding, manipulation, and celebrity.

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Risen

Risen is a fascinating film in what it gets right, and its major strength is its main weakness.

It’s the story of Clavius (Joseph Fiennes), a Roman tribune assigned to find Jesus’ dead body after it’s been assumed that his followers have stolen it. It’s in the tradition of The Robe, Barabbas, and of course, the all-time Oscar champ, Ben-Hur. It’s the Christ story from the perspective of the unbeliever.

What’s near-impossible to do in this cynical age is to present something clear, especially if it has to do with faith. The film, without any degree of “preaching to the choir,” presents the story that the Bible lays out: Jesus was crucified, buried, and rose again. Some of the political and religious leaders of the day conspired to promote the story that Jesus’ body was simply stolen, and that he never rose at all. Yet he appeared, especially to his disciples, several times, and was ultimately taken to heaven after giving them a commission to go out and make disciples. It’s all there. It’s not presented mysteriously, nor is it presented in a way that could be read any number of ways. According to the film, these things occurred.

Of course that makes the film something of a Rorschach test. As a believer, I was choked up several times at the depiction of events that resonate intellectually and emotionally. Those who don’t believe these things occurred historically may find the same scenes foolish, or perhaps borderline cheesy—though the film keeps any possible cinematic cheese to a minimum.

Risen’s strength is that it’s somewhat objective and straightforward in its presentation of Jesus and his actions. This isn’t the soft haze of a De Mille classic, or the rousing orchestral strings of a mid-50’s epic. Since historical truth is at the center of the main character’s quest—What really happened with Jesus after he died?—the film takes pains to present events with a kind of casual realism.

The film is more PG Son of God than R-rated Passion of the Christ, and the presentation of violence is worthy of study by other filmmakers. There is a great deal more violence suggested than actually presented, a rare triumph for any film attempting this. While not reducing the significance of the Biblical events depicted, the film also keeps a lid on the traditional religious visual and aural trappings associated with powerful Biblical events and keeps things relatively simple and direct, and at something of a cool distance. Director Kevin Reynolds (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Waterworld, and TV’s Hatfields & McCoys) hasn’t done a feature in a decade, and shows he still has the ability to present a strong narrative in a place and time different from our own.

While the cinematic distance works, and works well, for the depiction of miracles and other spiritual manifestations, it doesn’t work as well for the main story. This is the story of a military man searching for the truth, [spoiler alert], beginning with deep cynicism and ending up believing. Fiennes (Shakespeare in Love) can be an intense and deeply emotional actor. He’s always the former here, but isn’t allowed to be the latter. Of course, as a military man, his character is self-contained and personally disciplined. But as he continues his spiritual journey, we are kept at the same cool distance as we are from the miracles. We are allowed to see his story, but not get deeply involved in it. Many times the camera is at a distance that shows us the ancient buildings and strengthens the sense of place, but that same distance keeps us watching Clavius instead of identifying with him. Fiennes is capable of the emotional moments necessary to do that, but the script and direction keep him at a distance from us.

The disciples are generally presented well, with one exception. Batholomew (Stephen Hagan) is shown as something of a goofy early-‘70s hippie. And while enthusiasm and joy are understandable in context, this interpretation is just too much. It ventures into Bartholomew and Jesus’ Excellent Adventure territory.

The depiction of Jesus, however, is a small miracle (pun intended). The casting finally eschews the traditional American vision and gives us an actor who is very similar to what current anthropologists think Jesus might have looked like. He is subdued, but strong. There is more Jesus here than in Ben-Hur, and less than in Passion of the Christ. Jesus is a supporting character within the film, and that cool distance that the film brings to the miracles extends to the presentation of Jesus. There is a great challenge in presenting Christ as the Son of God, and the film generally succeeds there. He is holy, to be sure, but as real as he is holy.

There is one great moment in the film, and it may be the most successful in connecting good filmmaking with the heart of the faith story we’re experiencing. (Skip this paragraph if you’re going to see the film.) Clavius has been looking for Jesus’ disciples, hoping that he’ll eventually find out the plot to kidnap the body, locate it, and get Pilate off his back. In one of his searches, he breaks into a room of hiding disciples, and we feel a combination of success (he found what he was looking for!) and dread (oh, no, the disciples have been discovered!). Then as Clavius looks around the room at the strange faces, he eventually comes upon one he recognizes, the man he saw dead on the cross just a few days before. It’s a stunning, lovely moment, with equal parts discovery and disbelief—the perfect beginning of a serious journey of faith.

The film could use more connection with its main character. But what it gets right outweighs what it lacks. It’s a valuable contribution to the genre of the religious film and in parts, an excellent demonstration of how to present the impossible.

 

 

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2016 Oscar Report

 

It’s true—the Oscar telecast is getting less and less interesting each year. There are many reasons for that, which we won’t get into here. But last night’s wasn’t the worst. It was saved by a controversy and several surprise—even shocking—wins.

As host, Chris Rock was a relatively equal opportunity offender, and that worked well last night. Perhaps the best line of the night was Rock saying that yes, it wasn’t fair that Will Smith wasn’t nominated for Best Actor for Concussion (a notion up for discussion), but that it also wasn’t fair that he was paid 20 million dollars for Wild Wild West. In some ways, this says it all in terms of the #OscarsSoWhite “controversy.” Institutional racism is an issue that permeates our society, it’s true. And… what America saw last night, for the most part, was wildly over-privileged people—of every color—swelling with self-importance and nearly putting their shoulders out of joint patting themselves so vigorously on the back.

One of the great surprises was the choice of Spotlight for Best Picture. Given The Revenant’s momentum and the predictions of the official prognosticators, this was a bit of a surprise. Spotlight wasn’t my official prediction, but it was my choice, and I hope the win means that more folks will see this excellent film. Its social significance, apart from its excellence, will keep this as a classic.

Perhaps the biggest surprise of the night was Mark Rylance’s win for Best Supporting Actor for Bridge of Spies. This was “supposed” to be Sylvester Stallone’s nostalgic win for his best career performance in Creed, as well as a vote for a film by a black director starring a young black star. The category was stuffed with great performances, and any could have legitimately won. But Rylance was the best of the actors (and that’s saying a lot!), and gave a subtle, genuinely beautiful performance that helped ground that film. Since he is an acting legend, especially on stage and across the pond, I assumed he’d win an Oscar “eventually.” I had no idea that eventually would be last night.

The other big surprise was the Best Visual Effects award for Ex Machina, a relatively little-seen film that was probably best known for Alicia Vikander’s other great 2015 performance, and one that most Oscar voters must have had in mind as they voted her the Best Supporting Actress award for her work in The Danish Girl.

The many awards racked up by Mad Max: Fury Road wasn’t a surprise, except for costumes, which to my mind just got caught up in the coattails of the many technical awards given to the film. There were at least three other films that could have won that award, and would have deserved it.

That big exhale sound you might have heard last night or this morning was America’s sigh of relief that Leo has finally won his Oscar. No one “deserves” an award just because they have been nominated X number of times, but it was still fun to see him win.

One happy surprise was the win for Sam Smith’s and Jimmy Nape’s Spectre song, “Writing’s on the Wall.” While everyone writing in advance seemed to want to see Lady Gaga win for “’Til It Happens to You,” and the performance of that song turned into A MOMENT, it didn’t win, and the better song did. I completely support the sentiment of The Hunting Ground and its song, “’Til It Happens to You,” but it was a bit much to upholster what was to be a performance of the song with layers and layers of emotional meaning; besides, I was afraid Lady Gaga was going to spontaneously combust at certain points during her performance. I’m glad she’s OK.

Whether he deserved it this year or not—always a question with career awards—composing legend Ennio Morricone (The Hateful Eight) finally got his long-awaited Oscar. And his homage to fellow legend John Williams was a moment of true class. Google him and see what great work he’s done.

History was made last night in the Best Cinematography category. Four times earlier in the Academy’s history, a man has won this award two years in a row. The Revenant’s Emmanuel Lubezki won his third in a row last night. He won last year for Birdman, or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) and the year before for Gravity. His work on these three wildly different films attests to his talent. He just passed into legend last night, and he has years of great work before him.

The Revenant’s director, Alejandro Iñárritu, made his own mark in film history by winning his second Best Director Oscar last night, a year after winning it for Birdman. He’s busy at the moment with the television series, “The One Percent,” so it’s unlikely he’ll repeat next year.

There were some things that worked well, and many that didn’t. The Star Wars creatures bombed, as did Stacey Dash, and the whole Girl Scout Cookie thing. There are so many ways the telecast could be improved. But for some unknown reason, they haven’t asked me. Maybe someday I’ll offer my ideas on this site. In the meantime, I’ll watch, be surprised, be disappointed, and still be unable to look away.

Posted in Film-Related Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hail, Caesar!

I so wanted Hail, Caesar! to be as good as its trailer. It had all the ingredients that would delight this film nerd: references to movie situations and characters that I would get and most everyone else wouldn’t (appeal to pride there), beautiful lush cinematography by the great Roger Deakins, direction by the Coen Brothers, one of my favorite directors (or directorial teams, to be accurate), and a musical number that pays homage to the kind of musicals I’m writing a book about.

What could go wrong? You have George Clooney, the underrated Josh Brolin, Scarlett Johansson, Ralph Fiennes, Tilda Swinton times two, Frances McDormand, Channing Tatum doing some legitimate dancing, Jonah Hill and a variety of talented character actors.

A great topic—Hollywood in the early fifties, at its most bloated. All these talented people. Two Oscar-winning directors. But it just doesn’t fall together. The main delight comes from all the different side stories—which is exactly the reason this film ultimately doesn’t work. Too many ideas given too much weight:

  • A subplot about the communist threat (after all, this was at the height of the House Un-American Activities Committee paranoia)
  • An Esther Williams-like swimmer/diver who gets pregnant
  • A singing cowboy who is shoved into an elegant costume drama for which he is woefully unprepared
  • A Gene Kelly-like dancer who turns out to be somewhat different from what we expect
  • Tilda Swinton playing, essentially, Hedda Hopper AND Louella Parsons, the Hollywood gossip columnists of the day
  • A kidnapping of a major male movie star, who is making a Biblical epic on the scale of The Robe or Ben Hur.

The reason I put that last plotline, which the trailer highlights, at the end of the list of subplots because that is what it is basically is. The real “story, “ if there is a central story, is the story of Eddie Mannix (Brolin), who is a fixer for Capital Pictures. (The character is obviously named after the real M-G-M fixer named Eddie Mannix, who was far more dangerous and disreputable than his cinematic namesake. The real Mannix may have been responsible for the death of his wife and may well have had an involvement with the death of TV “Superman” George Reeves.) This film’s Mannix is a Catholic confess-aholic whose main vice is apparently smoking. Brolin’s character “fixes” a number of problems for his studio, but is nowhere near as dark as the real Mannix.

Mannix’s struggle with religion is perhaps one of the most fascinating and disappointing aspects of Hail, Caesar! The film opens aurally with heavy religious music and visually with a crucified Christ on the cross. As in several of their previous films, the Coen Brothers aren’t afraid to go into some depth on religious and spiritual issues. But while there is real humor behind the discussion of four different religious leaders on how they respond to the Hail, Caesar! script (the film doubles as the name of the Biblical film that the Clooney character is starring in), the film settles for superficial humor at the expense of some resonance that might have helped the film.

Though the Mannix story is first presented as central, there are simply too many rabbit trails and subplots that are given too much bulk. A film going after (in the lightest comedic sense, of course) Old Hollywood has a lot at its disposal for anything from satire to ridicule, but the casting of major stars and the amount of time given to the subplots makes this a film that is less than the sum of its parts.

What a film like this needs to work well is forward momentum and tone. Mannix’s story promises to be the central thread, but it becomes the main subplot instead. We lose momentum constantly when we veer off into side stories with big stars doing a great job creating what amounts to films-within-the-film. Even Jonah Hill, in the film for a moment, is more of an amusing distraction than an addition.

The film scores a little higher on tone, which is a high-wire act in a film that’s serious and not at the same time. Most of the actors do well in this regard. Clooney is back in his goofus mode that worked so well in his earlier Coen collaboration, O Brother, Where Are Thou? Brolin keeps things on the ground with a solid, once-removed-from-reality performance that could have held the film together with a more integrated screenplay. Scarlett Johansson as “Esther Williams” is both too much and too little. She brings such authority to her character on the screen that we want more of her story, but we don’t get it. What should have been something of an aside becomes something of a major plot point that we end up missing.

Probably the best performance in the film aside from Brolin’s is Alden Ehrenreich (Beautiful Creatures, Blue Jasmine), who plays Hobie Doyle, the Gene Autry-like singing cowboy. Again, there’s both too much and too little of him and his story, but as a fresh face and someone who seems to nail the acting tone the Coens were looking for, he is a delight in every scene.

Bottom line: There are too many good actors given too much time to flesh out their characters and broaden their subplots. This plays havoc with the attempted tone of lightness and energy, and eventually pulls the film into too many directions, slowing and weighing it down in the process.

There are joys, of course. Johansson’s character is a hoot. Ehrenreich’s is a joy to have on screen. And yes, Tatum can dance and even sing, though what should have been a quick and delightful scene goes from great to fey to gay, with a scene extension that wipes out the happy memories of the previous few minutes. Then what happens to Tatum’s character is beautifully photographed and overdone in both direction and plot, sending the film in yet another amusing/confusing direction.

With all the inside jokes and the real satire of overstuffed historical epics, the Red Scare subplots and substitutes for real stars such as Esther Williams, Gene Kelly and Carmen Miranda, this film provides the fodder for many a film studies paper. It could have been a much better picture. It could have continued the Brothers’ seeming genuine interest in religious/spiritual issues. It could have made either more or less of the communist/capitalist theme, which again was both too much and too light. It could easily have done with lesser stars and a central plot that held the side stories together. As it is, it’s genuinely funny at times for those with a strong understanding of Hollywood history and occasionally amusing for the rest.

Channing, keep up the hard work. Alden, we want to see more of you on screen. Scarlett, is there anything you can’t do? Josh, you seem to always be in someone’s shadow (Clooney, Sean Penn, Jeff Bridges, Javier Bardem, Barbra Streisand); you’ll get your big shiny role someday. Joel and Ethan: Now that this is out of your system, don’t abandon the idea. Just get a stronger central story, forget about all the stars willing to work with you, and try this once more.

 

Posted in Film Reviews, Newer films | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

2016 Oscar Predictions

Here are my predictions for tomorrow’s Oscars. Remember, these are not my preferences, just my predictions!

Best Picture
The Big Short
Bridge of Spies
Brooklyn
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
Room
Spotlight

Note: Spotlight and The Big Short cancel one another out, and the epic wins.

Best Director
Lenny Abrahamson, Room
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, The Revenant
Tom McCarthy, Spotlight
Adam McKay, The Big Short
George Miller, Mad Max: Fury Road

Note: First time in over 50 years that a director wins two years in a row.

Best Actor
Bryan Cranston, Trumbo
Matt Damon, The Martian
Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant
Michael Fassbender, Steve Jobs
Eddie Redmayne, The Danish Girl

Best Actress
Cate Blanchett, Carol
Brie Larson, Room
Jennifer Lawrence, Joy
Charlotte Rampling, 45 Years
Saoirse Ronan, Brooklyn

Note: My preference is Ronan, but she’ll win eventually.

Best Supporting Actor
Christian Bale, The Big Short
Tom Hardy, The Revenant
Mark Ruffalo, Spotlight
Mark Rylance, Bridge of Spies
Sylvester Stallone, Creed

Note: Nostalgia will triumph with Stallone, but this is one of the great collections of acting performances ever.

Best Supporting Actress
Jennifer Jason Leigh, The Hateful Eight
Rooney Mara, Carol
Rachel McAdams, Spotlight
Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl
Kate Winslet, Steve Jobs

Best Original Screenplay
Bridge of Spies
Ex Machina
Inside Out
Spotlight
Straight Outta Compton

Best Adapted Screenplay
The Big Short
Brooklyn
Carol
The Martian
Room

Best Cinematography
Carol
The Hateful Eight
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Revenant
Sicario

Note: This will be three years in a row for this cinematographer!

Best Costume Design
Carol
Cinderella
The Danish Girl
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Revenant

 Note: A very tough call here!

Best Film Editing
The Big Short
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Revenant
Spotlight
Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Best Makeup and Hairstyling
Mad Max: Fury Road
The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed out the Window and Disappeared
The Revenant

Best Production Design
Bridge of Spies
The Danish Girl
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant

Best Score
Bridge of Spies
Carol
The Hateful Eight
Sicario
Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Note: This is a career award more than anything else.

Best Song
Fifty Shades of Grey – Earned It
The Hunting Ground – Til it Happens to You
Racing Extinction – Manta Ray
Spectre – Writing’s on the Wall
Youth – Simple Song #3

Note: Are they voting just to see Lady Gaga win?

Best Sound Editing
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
Sicario
Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Best Sound Mixing
Bridge of Spies
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
 

Best Visual Effects
Ex Machina
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Note: Another tough call.

Best Animated Feature
Anomalisa
Boy and the World
Inside Out
Shaun the Sheep Movie
When Marnie Was There

 Note: This one is as predictable as Best Actor.

Best Documentary Feature
Amy
Cartel Land
The Look of Silence
What Happened, Miss Simone?
Winter on Fire: Ukraine’s Fight for Freedom

Best Foreign Language Film
Embrace of the Serpent
Mustang
Son of Saul
Theeb
A War

Best Animated Short
Bear Story
Prologue
Sanjay’s Super Team
We Can’t Live without Cosmos
World of Tomorrow

Best Documentary Short
Body Team 12
Chau, Beyond the Lines
Claude Lanzmann: Spectres of the Shoah
A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness
Last Day of Freedom

Best Live Action Short
Ave Maria
Day One
Everything Will Be Okay (Alles Wird Gut)
Shok
Stutterer

We’ll see how I do!

Note: Again, this was done with GREAT assistance from my Oscar ballot partner, Clint Morgan!

Posted in Film-Related Articles | Leave a comment

2016 Oscar Nominations—Best Director

This category may well be the hardest to predict—with the possible exception of Best Picture. It’s no longer a given that the two categories are joined at the hip. Ang Lee won Best Director for Brokeback Mountain a decade ago, when Crash won Best Picture. More recently, the technical achievement of a film has won it the Best Director award, while the Best Picture award went elsewhere.

Alfonso Cuarón won Best Director for Gravity two years ago, while Best Picture went to 12 Years a Slave. A year before that, Ang Lee won Best Director for Life of Pi, and Best Picture went to Argo. Both director wins were for technical triumphs, rewards for conquering a mountain of problems to pull off the impossible.

Last year’s winner, Alejandro Iñárritu, won for the dazzling Birdman or (the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance). That was a great film with great performances, stunning cinematography, and a great story. If Iñárritu wins again for The Revenant, he will be the first director to win back-to-back directing Oscars since Joseph Mankiewicz in 1949 and 1950, when he won for A Letter to Three Wives and All About Eve. (Incidentally, he also won Oscars those same years for his screenplays for those films.) 

The other nominees are:

Lenny Abrahamson—Room

Tom McCarthy—Spotlight

Adam McKay—The Big Short

George Miller—Mad Max: Fury Road

This one’s a tough call, and there is a lot of love for George Miller’s work in Mad Max. But with all the nominations for that film, and with some technical awards all but locked up, that’s probably enough love from the Academy for Miller. Also, Room, Spotlight and The Big Short are focused, intense, tight dramas. Their strength is their focus, not their scope.

The Revenant has scope to beat the band, reminding at times of a grayer, bluer, colder version of Lawrence of Arabia. It’s the BIG picture of the year, and features an Oscar-winning central performance, plus one Oscar-worthy supporting performance. There is nothing else like it this year, and with all its faults (its reach surely exceeded its grasp), it’s nevertheless an amazing piece of film.

Ordinarily, one might say that because a director won the year before, it’s unlikely he’ll win the next. But when the two films are so very different, and so very good, it shines a new and fresh light on the director that the year’s previous win can’t dim.

Best Director Prediction: Alejandro Iñárritu for The Revenant.

Posted in Film-Related Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment