Defiance
directed by Edward Zwick
written by Clayton Frohman, Edward Zwick
based on the book, “Defiance: the Bielski Partisans” by Nechama Tec
starring Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber, Jamie Bell, Alexa Davalos, George MacKay, Allan Corduner, Mark Feuerstein, Tomas Arana, Mia Wasikowska
Four brothers escape the perils of Nazi-occupied Germany and take to the forest. They quickly realize there are others and quickly dangerous rescue missions are undertaken to rescue as many Jews as possible.
The Bielski brothers consist of Tuvia (Craig), Zus (Schreiber), Asael (Bell) and Aron (MacKay). Their parents have been murdered by the police. Tuvia takes a gun with four bullets to the Chief’s house and comes back with three. He spared the grieving widow and denied her of her wish to be shot dead as well. There is a rivalry between Tuvia and Zus and there is always the threat that they will resort to violence. When this finally happens it explodes in a full-on brawl that shocks those who look on.
The story focuses on the accumulation of Jews, some of them who are ill-prepared to hole up in the forest. At first women are not allowed to handle weapons but this idea is quashed when it becomes apparent that it is necessary to include them in the fighting. Slowly but surely the Jews shuffle into the forest, sick, confused, bewildered by their circumstances, tired, and very hungry. It is intense to see all of these Jews appear as if out of thin air. One is supposed to imagine the nightmarish existence that has proceeded the arrival in the forest and this realization helps inform the duration of the film. These people, the film consistently reminds us, have almost been broken but not quite. They have finally come to a place where life can begin a new without daily persecution. Yet they are reminded that they may very well die if fight and this real potentiality does not deter them.
Granted, the enemy in this film doesn’t get an opportunity to express an opinion on any topic whatsoever. Perhaps this is necessary to the overall tone of the film. An articulate Nazi clearly stating his position, dressed in his finest, might throw the entire film out of balance. One can’t allow arguments against the central core belief being presented by the film to be validated. Well, one could if the intent of the film was to be parity and not strict demonization.
The forest scenes are gorgeously shot as the small Jewish community begins to form. There is a real sense of home created in the wilderness as all those healthy enough to participate are put to work to do whatever is necessary to maintain the integrity of the operation. There is of course romance which one can’t help but expect under these conditions. Tuvia and Lilka Ticktin (Davalos) strike up a sexual relationship and Asael marries a girl named Chaya Dziencielsky (Wasikowska). These scenes between the couples are treated with soft light that is supposed to remind viewers that life does not end because one is trapped in an undesirable situation.
There are many images of exhausted, ill-kempt and miserable looking Jews which I suppose enforces the lowly state that many of them were reduced to during this trying time. There isn’t a terribly significant presentation of a great number of vital personages who are fully capable of saving themselves would it ever come to that. Instead they require Tuvia to be their leader and instruct them on the proper course to ensure their survival. Left alone they would never be able to survive their ordeal. At least this is how the film depicts them. Many of them stand on the sideline shivering and hoping desperately that there will be enough food to feed them for another day at least. In this world the only thing save survival that matters is making sure you have enough bullets to protect yourself and those others who have come into your care.
Zus is presented as a born fighter who has something of the mercenary to his personality. There is one sequence of fighting that is rather laughably like the most stereotypical action film replete with slow motion and many dead bodies. It’s questionable if the partisans entertained the Germans in this type of combat; some have said that it never take place. Regardless, it’s exceedingly energetic at times and the action sequences provide the film with a necessary intensity that it maintains nearly throughout.
The insurgents encounter a regiment of Russian partisans; Zus and some of the others agree to fight along side them in exchange for supplies. The Russians prove to be capable warriors but ultimately upset Zus due to their rampant antisemitism. Zus returns to the camp just in time to make himself very useful in another battle with the Germans. There really isn’t anyplace for this rag-tag band of Jewish survivors to turn to other than themselves. Yet as mentioned most of appear to helplessly go along with whatever is being administrated to them.
This film does speak to countless possibilities regarding our own survival capacities. How many of us possess the proper skills to survive out in conditions such as those that are laid out in this film? The film seems to suggest that provided with the correct type of leadership then even the lowliest amongst us might have a fighting chance to pull through such difficult times. The idea of being thrust into a whole new existence is a titillating one. To be forced to make your own way free of bank accounts, grocery stores, gas stations, libraries, etc. is not something that most civilized folks are even able to contemplate. These Jews survived two more years beyond the end of the film and they built hospitals and schools. It’s a remarkable achievement that is necessitated by absolute fear and the resultant posture of fearlessness.
The performances in this film all work well with the material. Liev Schreiber is a force of nature for the duration of this film. His physicality is immense but he also brings a solidity to the role and it is clear that he is in a position of respect in the community. Schreiber demonstrates a sort of fearlessness in his performance that is both riveting and a bit terrifying. Daniel Craig as Tuvia takes care of the administration in this film. He’s essentially a bureaucrat who structures and organizes the daily routine. As such his role is to remain calm and as objective as possible. Craig exudes a quiet and intense calm in his eyes which he uses time and again when the camera reminds the audience what he is looking at.
Overall, this film is a decent piece of melodramatic cinema that promotes a specific truth about this particular series of events that led to the survival of scores of Jews in a time when most of them may not have survived. I suppose the intent of the film is to sell the idea that these particular Jews grew stronger as their stay in the forest lengthened. They learned how to make the most out of a trying and exceedingly strange and difficult situation. In the end it’s just another story about the perseverance of the human will to survive at all costs. In that it’s not a remarkable telling and the final imprint of the film is in turn trite and unexceptional. There isn’t really anything here that hasn’t been seen many times before. People are scared, running from the other, and find themselves face-to-face with their own mortality. Ultimately, the film merely states the obvious and it doesn’t do anything much more than that.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Film Review--My Man Godfrey
My Man Godfrey
directed by Gregory La Cava
written by Morrie Ryskind, Eric Hatch
starring William Powell, Carole Lombard, Alice Brady, Gail Patrick, Eugene Pallette, Jean Dixon, Mischa Auer, Pat Flaherty, Alan Mowbray, Robert Light
A down-on-his-luck man finds him thrust into high society in this ribald, rolicking comedy of errors.
William Powell plays the titular Godfrey, a man who has been successful in life but who stumbled through a rough patch and ended up living at the city dump. Sisters Irene (Lombard) and Cornelia Bullock (Patrick) are involved in a silly little game that reflects on their class’s overarching boredom more than anything else. They are collecting strange objects and racing to a massive hotel with hundreds of others to be recognized for their find. On this particular sojourn the ladies are scouting for a “forgotten man”. Cornelia approaches Godfrey first but can’t convince him to go with her. Irene tries her hand and succeeds. After taking her toy to the hotel she offers him a job as the family’s butler and he accepts.
Godfrey certainly appears to be a fairly decent butler. He catches little snippets of conversation and completes all the deeds a butler is supposed to do. The only problem is that Irene has fallen in love with him and won’t let him alone. She pesters him all the time and nearly drives the poor man out of his mind. Fortunately he’s got the ice cold Cornelia to keep him on his toes and at least take his mind off of Irene and the fact that he’s working for a family of pampered, soft nit-wits. It is true that there is tremendous chemistry between Powell and Patrick but the film doesn’t do a whole lot to exploit it. For her part Cornelia attempts to break Godfrey by planting a string of pearls beneath his bed. He’s one step ahead of her and removes the pearls to a safe location before he can be caught with them.
The family is indeed wholly privileged and exceedingly lazy save the father, a man named Alexander (Pallette), who seems to be working his company into the ground. Still, they all live in a lavish home that is exquisitely filmed; the slight decadence of the Bullocks is brought into clear focus as they lie about all day doing something close to nothing. The film criticizes this lifestyle and in fact might be attempting to hold it in contempt. This kind of luxury is held up as debilitating. There is a character named Carlo (Auer) who seems to do nothing but sit around eating whatever is available and occasionally playing somber Russian music on the piano. The girls do nothing whatsoever, get sent to Europe after Irene’s engagement falls apart, and have plenty of time to waste on this or that triviality. The poor just don’t have the time or the means to waste it on collecting “forgotten men”. The whole concept is absurd to the poor who at least retain their dignity no matter how far they fall. Indeed, it’s the poor who are ultimately celebrated in this film. The affluent are shown to be a bunch of trivial nincompoops whose level of ennui reaches such an epic scale that they must play psychologically torturous games with men who gather and live at the dump.
Irene is a chatty gal who cries at every turn. She’s hysterical most of the time and all of her anguish is due to her love for Godfrey whom she has taken on as something of a protégée and for whom she feels responsible for. But it is much more than that and the wee lass is utterly dumbstruck with affection for Godfrey and she can hardly stand not being near him. He’s cool of course immersed as he is with his job and maintaining the proper order about the house amidst a group of people who are very much like children who need to be cared for at all times. The mother, Angelica (Brady), is a flighty bird who remains ensconced in her perfectly codified little bubble without a clue about how the outside world actually operates. She flits about trying to maintain her youth, her looks, and every other superficial means she employs to attract attention. She does tell Godfrey that he’s the only butler they have ever had who understands women and this certainly appears to be true after a fashion. Nevertheless, he’s a bit stymied by the sheer force of Irene’s attention and does what he can to stave her off.
Cornelia in her frigid way demands that she too be noticed by Godfrey despite her disdainful treatment of him. Her pride is hurt and it stems from the moment upon first apprehending Godfrey when he knocked her back into an ash pile. She harbors resentment just like any trivial thing who can’t bear to be made a fool of in public however odious she considers it to be. She also can’t stand to see her kid sister fawn over a man who is utterly indifferent to her misplaced charms. Godfrey might have had is way with her, strong arming her with a an intense kiss that would have sent her reeling. It’s precisely what she needs and perhaps no other type of man will do. She is a woman who requires of her lovers a certain brutality that melts her icy exterior and makes of her something akin to a sexual slave. She wants to be kept, contained, and broken down by a man as long as he provides her with all of the material comforts she has become accustomed to.
Irene revels in hysterics specifically to be noticed by Godfrey. She whines and caterwauls at every opportunity like a baby positioning itself for a bottle or a rattle. She’s basically a little girl who desperately needs to be spanked on the bottom very hard and for a considerable length of time. It’s the only way she could ever regain her composure and start behaving like a woman who isn’t so needy and definably weak. Unfortunately, Godfrey is not capable of meting out such necessary punishment so she’ll probably go on just like she is pitching fits whenever she can’t get her way.
The performances in this film are uniformly excellent. Carol Lombard captures all of the sniveling and mock-serious bawling of a character who hilariously acts like a spoilt brat for the duration of the film. William Powell exudes class and style in this film. He looks comfortable in both his filthy rags and his sharp tuxedo. Godfrey is a man who knows what he’s about and can be comfortable in any situation. He’s very controlled and wickedly charming as he fills a void while mentally making plans to do something impossibly grand and humanitarian. Gail Patrick as mentioned is deliciously cold as Cornelia. Her character is exquisitely devious in her efforts to defame Godfrey but her sordid efforts go for nought as he’s just a bit smarter than she is. Plus she’s got those smouldering eyes which rachet up her considerable sex appeal to a frightening level. Mischa Auer certainly sombers things up a bit with his maudlin piano tunes. Carlo is the typical freeloader who manages to keep up his position for quite a while. Auer is extremely funny playing a man who epitomizes this lazy, unencumbered lifestyle that corrodes the soul.
Overall, this film captures all of the flaky machinations of the nouveau riche. Godfrey literally climbs out of the city dump to demonstrate a true and visible quality of a man of integrity. He’s the only truly stable person in the Bullock household and provides them with an example of a man who cannot be broken by mere circumstance. It’s a lesson these high society folks desperately need to learn but there is only a slight indication that this has occurred by the end of the film. The two central female characters are indicative of a time when women had very specific places in society and that was mostly to look amazing, spawn, keep their damn mouths shut, and keep the castle glimmering. Of course no man is going to stop Irene from yammering and she certainly isn’t capable of either cooking or cleaning so she’s most certainly going to continue being a big old baby unless she gets smacked around now and again. Not too hard, just enough to remind her where she is and what she’s in for if she continues to use her fits in a manipulative dash for attention.
directed by Gregory La Cava
written by Morrie Ryskind, Eric Hatch
starring William Powell, Carole Lombard, Alice Brady, Gail Patrick, Eugene Pallette, Jean Dixon, Mischa Auer, Pat Flaherty, Alan Mowbray, Robert Light
A down-on-his-luck man finds him thrust into high society in this ribald, rolicking comedy of errors.
William Powell plays the titular Godfrey, a man who has been successful in life but who stumbled through a rough patch and ended up living at the city dump. Sisters Irene (Lombard) and Cornelia Bullock (Patrick) are involved in a silly little game that reflects on their class’s overarching boredom more than anything else. They are collecting strange objects and racing to a massive hotel with hundreds of others to be recognized for their find. On this particular sojourn the ladies are scouting for a “forgotten man”. Cornelia approaches Godfrey first but can’t convince him to go with her. Irene tries her hand and succeeds. After taking her toy to the hotel she offers him a job as the family’s butler and he accepts.
Godfrey certainly appears to be a fairly decent butler. He catches little snippets of conversation and completes all the deeds a butler is supposed to do. The only problem is that Irene has fallen in love with him and won’t let him alone. She pesters him all the time and nearly drives the poor man out of his mind. Fortunately he’s got the ice cold Cornelia to keep him on his toes and at least take his mind off of Irene and the fact that he’s working for a family of pampered, soft nit-wits. It is true that there is tremendous chemistry between Powell and Patrick but the film doesn’t do a whole lot to exploit it. For her part Cornelia attempts to break Godfrey by planting a string of pearls beneath his bed. He’s one step ahead of her and removes the pearls to a safe location before he can be caught with them.
The family is indeed wholly privileged and exceedingly lazy save the father, a man named Alexander (Pallette), who seems to be working his company into the ground. Still, they all live in a lavish home that is exquisitely filmed; the slight decadence of the Bullocks is brought into clear focus as they lie about all day doing something close to nothing. The film criticizes this lifestyle and in fact might be attempting to hold it in contempt. This kind of luxury is held up as debilitating. There is a character named Carlo (Auer) who seems to do nothing but sit around eating whatever is available and occasionally playing somber Russian music on the piano. The girls do nothing whatsoever, get sent to Europe after Irene’s engagement falls apart, and have plenty of time to waste on this or that triviality. The poor just don’t have the time or the means to waste it on collecting “forgotten men”. The whole concept is absurd to the poor who at least retain their dignity no matter how far they fall. Indeed, it’s the poor who are ultimately celebrated in this film. The affluent are shown to be a bunch of trivial nincompoops whose level of ennui reaches such an epic scale that they must play psychologically torturous games with men who gather and live at the dump.
Irene is a chatty gal who cries at every turn. She’s hysterical most of the time and all of her anguish is due to her love for Godfrey whom she has taken on as something of a protégée and for whom she feels responsible for. But it is much more than that and the wee lass is utterly dumbstruck with affection for Godfrey and she can hardly stand not being near him. He’s cool of course immersed as he is with his job and maintaining the proper order about the house amidst a group of people who are very much like children who need to be cared for at all times. The mother, Angelica (Brady), is a flighty bird who remains ensconced in her perfectly codified little bubble without a clue about how the outside world actually operates. She flits about trying to maintain her youth, her looks, and every other superficial means she employs to attract attention. She does tell Godfrey that he’s the only butler they have ever had who understands women and this certainly appears to be true after a fashion. Nevertheless, he’s a bit stymied by the sheer force of Irene’s attention and does what he can to stave her off.
Cornelia in her frigid way demands that she too be noticed by Godfrey despite her disdainful treatment of him. Her pride is hurt and it stems from the moment upon first apprehending Godfrey when he knocked her back into an ash pile. She harbors resentment just like any trivial thing who can’t bear to be made a fool of in public however odious she considers it to be. She also can’t stand to see her kid sister fawn over a man who is utterly indifferent to her misplaced charms. Godfrey might have had is way with her, strong arming her with a an intense kiss that would have sent her reeling. It’s precisely what she needs and perhaps no other type of man will do. She is a woman who requires of her lovers a certain brutality that melts her icy exterior and makes of her something akin to a sexual slave. She wants to be kept, contained, and broken down by a man as long as he provides her with all of the material comforts she has become accustomed to.
Irene revels in hysterics specifically to be noticed by Godfrey. She whines and caterwauls at every opportunity like a baby positioning itself for a bottle or a rattle. She’s basically a little girl who desperately needs to be spanked on the bottom very hard and for a considerable length of time. It’s the only way she could ever regain her composure and start behaving like a woman who isn’t so needy and definably weak. Unfortunately, Godfrey is not capable of meting out such necessary punishment so she’ll probably go on just like she is pitching fits whenever she can’t get her way.
The performances in this film are uniformly excellent. Carol Lombard captures all of the sniveling and mock-serious bawling of a character who hilariously acts like a spoilt brat for the duration of the film. William Powell exudes class and style in this film. He looks comfortable in both his filthy rags and his sharp tuxedo. Godfrey is a man who knows what he’s about and can be comfortable in any situation. He’s very controlled and wickedly charming as he fills a void while mentally making plans to do something impossibly grand and humanitarian. Gail Patrick as mentioned is deliciously cold as Cornelia. Her character is exquisitely devious in her efforts to defame Godfrey but her sordid efforts go for nought as he’s just a bit smarter than she is. Plus she’s got those smouldering eyes which rachet up her considerable sex appeal to a frightening level. Mischa Auer certainly sombers things up a bit with his maudlin piano tunes. Carlo is the typical freeloader who manages to keep up his position for quite a while. Auer is extremely funny playing a man who epitomizes this lazy, unencumbered lifestyle that corrodes the soul.
Overall, this film captures all of the flaky machinations of the nouveau riche. Godfrey literally climbs out of the city dump to demonstrate a true and visible quality of a man of integrity. He’s the only truly stable person in the Bullock household and provides them with an example of a man who cannot be broken by mere circumstance. It’s a lesson these high society folks desperately need to learn but there is only a slight indication that this has occurred by the end of the film. The two central female characters are indicative of a time when women had very specific places in society and that was mostly to look amazing, spawn, keep their damn mouths shut, and keep the castle glimmering. Of course no man is going to stop Irene from yammering and she certainly isn’t capable of either cooking or cleaning so she’s most certainly going to continue being a big old baby unless she gets smacked around now and again. Not too hard, just enough to remind her where she is and what she’s in for if she continues to use her fits in a manipulative dash for attention.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Film Review--Bride Wars
Bride Wars
directed by Gary Winick
written by Greg DePaul, Casey Wilson and June Diane Raphael
starring Kate Hudson, Anne Hathaway, Bryan Greenburg, Chris Pratt, Steve Howey, Candice Burgen
Hysterical women and clueless men are on vivid display in this marginally successful comedy of errors.
Liv (Hudson) and Emma (Hathaway) have been obsessed with weddings ever since they witnessed a particularly grand one at the Plaza Hotel in New York City when they were six. Each of them has dreamed of their own June wedding at the Plaza and each of them seem to get their wish when their boyfriends propose. Everything is set in motion, they book their dates with a fierce and frightening wedding planner named Marion St. Claire (Bergen). Unfortunately a snag occurs and each wedding is booked on the same day. Neither woman will budge on the date and the rest of the film features two manic women doing everything in their power to sabotage the other’s wedding.
I have to admit to rather enjoying the bitchy hissy fits that take up the bulk of the film. The sabotage is somewhat ingenious as each pulsating bride-to-be searches for new and exciting ways to torment her friend. These include Emma sending cookies and chocolates to Liv in order to make her too fat to wear her Vera Wang gown. The line goes something to the effect that “you don’t alter a Vera to fit your body. You alter your body to fit Vera.” Also, Emma hires an atrocious dance instructor to put them through the motions and essentially terrify and exhaust them. She also manages to switch the colors at a beauty salon so that Liv’s hair turns blue. Liv for her part changes the toner so that Emma emerges from a tanning salon looking like that woman I used to know who ate carrots non stop. She saves the best one for last which deeply angers Emma and causes a direct physical confrontation which is always welcomed between two fiendishly attractive women. Cat fights have the great advantage of keeping men occupied long enough to forget they have been dragged along to a sub par romantic comedy.
In the film Liv is a successful lawyer who proves her mettle on several cases and seems to have a solid grip on her profession. That is until she shows up for work with her blue hair and suffers a total meltdown in front of a valuable client subsequently getting herself removed from the case. It’s an unfortunate turn of events that does nothing to bolster the overall longing that professional women harbor regarding how they are treated in cinema. In this case, the career-oriented woman in a legitimate position of power is struck down because she cannot leave her sad little personal life at the door when she goes to work. It’s not particularly encouraging and leaves a terribly sour taste in the mouth. It suggests that women are not emotionally solvent enough to handle even a petty crisis and the end result is hideous.
The idea of two shallow women tearing into each other for petty, pathetic reasons is not one that is significantly edifying in any way. They are weak-willed, treacherous, and manipulative to the point of absurdity. Neither of them possess any noble qualities and they just come off as a couple of sniveling nuisances over the course of the film. I can’t imagine anyone truly desiring to marry either of these women no matter how good they are in bed. In fact, even in bed Emma is most likely frigid and Liv exceedingly demanding so that would be no picnic either.
Despite the many things that are wrong with this film the performances by the two leads are always giddily entertaining. It’s such a joy to see Anne Hathaway behaving so cattily and indeed shaking her ass like a very bad girl in need of a spanking. Kate Hudson displays great comedic timing and I do believe she is one of our great screen comediennes. There is just something about her face that is wonderfully plastic that it seems she is very capable of making a great number of silly faces a’ la the classic Lucille Ball.
The men in this film are indistinguishable. I cannot tell you which one proposed to whom only that there is a wildcard in the mix who is Liv’s brother. Throughout the film there are tiny hints that lead one to a particular conclusion that happily resolves itself.
Women are portrayed throughout this film as completely hysterical when the spend any amount of time around each other. This film offers an insight into a strange world from a man’s perspective that is filled with a substantial amount of shrieking and caterwauling. It’s loud, raucous, and incredibly fast-paced. These women talk so fast that I found myself gasping for air. What do they talk about? I haven’t a clue only that I need oxygen after being made privy to it. It’s a bit frightening to be perfectly honest. A man would get cut into pieces in such an environment and he would have no chance of escaping the tyranny of the chatter. This is what women do when they are together. They sharpen their teeth and practice their best debasing gestures. In fact, they talk about men. In this case it’s the men who will rush the brushing brides out into the street into some ornate bedroom somewhere where the sex will not seem particularly memorable for either party.
The free woman with extra cash in this film must spend it all on a wedding because we all know that such an event is everything a real woman should be striving for. Weddings are everything and seem to develop way more importance than the actual marriage itself. Indeed, the marriage is an afterthought that must be endured after the great spectacle has been utterly absorbed. The men in this film simply do not care what ornate and elaborate thing their soon-to-be wives decide to bring into the wedding ceremony. They could care less about all the fancy accouterments and the dazzling displays that are intended in this film strictly for show and to out-do the planning of the other woman. Men are strictly hangers-on in this film and it’s best if they keep themselves silent and decidedly out of the way.
The performances in this film are all relatively effective. Anne Hathaway is very good in a role that she is really better than. She’s a talented serious actress who has the ability to collect any number of roles making films that audiences actually think about afterward. Her performance in “Rachael Getting Married” is a perfect example of the kind of actress she truly is. Granted, she has every right to make mindless fluff but I just don’t imagine that she has to. Kate Hudson seems best suited for screwball comedy and is remarkably good at using her body and gestures for comedic effect. In this film she is best when she’s reacting to something another character has said. She’s marvelously attentive and her timing is exquisite. Candice Bergen plays the queen bitch role with a tremendous amount of gusto. Her character possesses a cold, impenetrable exterior caging a warm, loving heart. In this film, she’s fairly totemic in her characterization and her presence is felt throughout.
Overall, this film isn’t particularly special but it features two of the most intriguing actresses of our era. Both of them are capable of extraordinary work and I suspect that they will find roles that are emotionally and psychologically challenging for both performer and audiences alike. This film doesn’t nothing that is particularly original and when they aren’t fighting it devolves into rightful inanity. The story doesn’t much matter in the end and once they have stopped tearing each other’s hair out the film fizzles to a dead stop.
directed by Gary Winick
written by Greg DePaul, Casey Wilson and June Diane Raphael
starring Kate Hudson, Anne Hathaway, Bryan Greenburg, Chris Pratt, Steve Howey, Candice Burgen
Hysterical women and clueless men are on vivid display in this marginally successful comedy of errors.
Liv (Hudson) and Emma (Hathaway) have been obsessed with weddings ever since they witnessed a particularly grand one at the Plaza Hotel in New York City when they were six. Each of them has dreamed of their own June wedding at the Plaza and each of them seem to get their wish when their boyfriends propose. Everything is set in motion, they book their dates with a fierce and frightening wedding planner named Marion St. Claire (Bergen). Unfortunately a snag occurs and each wedding is booked on the same day. Neither woman will budge on the date and the rest of the film features two manic women doing everything in their power to sabotage the other’s wedding.
I have to admit to rather enjoying the bitchy hissy fits that take up the bulk of the film. The sabotage is somewhat ingenious as each pulsating bride-to-be searches for new and exciting ways to torment her friend. These include Emma sending cookies and chocolates to Liv in order to make her too fat to wear her Vera Wang gown. The line goes something to the effect that “you don’t alter a Vera to fit your body. You alter your body to fit Vera.” Also, Emma hires an atrocious dance instructor to put them through the motions and essentially terrify and exhaust them. She also manages to switch the colors at a beauty salon so that Liv’s hair turns blue. Liv for her part changes the toner so that Emma emerges from a tanning salon looking like that woman I used to know who ate carrots non stop. She saves the best one for last which deeply angers Emma and causes a direct physical confrontation which is always welcomed between two fiendishly attractive women. Cat fights have the great advantage of keeping men occupied long enough to forget they have been dragged along to a sub par romantic comedy.
In the film Liv is a successful lawyer who proves her mettle on several cases and seems to have a solid grip on her profession. That is until she shows up for work with her blue hair and suffers a total meltdown in front of a valuable client subsequently getting herself removed from the case. It’s an unfortunate turn of events that does nothing to bolster the overall longing that professional women harbor regarding how they are treated in cinema. In this case, the career-oriented woman in a legitimate position of power is struck down because she cannot leave her sad little personal life at the door when she goes to work. It’s not particularly encouraging and leaves a terribly sour taste in the mouth. It suggests that women are not emotionally solvent enough to handle even a petty crisis and the end result is hideous.
The idea of two shallow women tearing into each other for petty, pathetic reasons is not one that is significantly edifying in any way. They are weak-willed, treacherous, and manipulative to the point of absurdity. Neither of them possess any noble qualities and they just come off as a couple of sniveling nuisances over the course of the film. I can’t imagine anyone truly desiring to marry either of these women no matter how good they are in bed. In fact, even in bed Emma is most likely frigid and Liv exceedingly demanding so that would be no picnic either.
Despite the many things that are wrong with this film the performances by the two leads are always giddily entertaining. It’s such a joy to see Anne Hathaway behaving so cattily and indeed shaking her ass like a very bad girl in need of a spanking. Kate Hudson displays great comedic timing and I do believe she is one of our great screen comediennes. There is just something about her face that is wonderfully plastic that it seems she is very capable of making a great number of silly faces a’ la the classic Lucille Ball.
The men in this film are indistinguishable. I cannot tell you which one proposed to whom only that there is a wildcard in the mix who is Liv’s brother. Throughout the film there are tiny hints that lead one to a particular conclusion that happily resolves itself.
Women are portrayed throughout this film as completely hysterical when the spend any amount of time around each other. This film offers an insight into a strange world from a man’s perspective that is filled with a substantial amount of shrieking and caterwauling. It’s loud, raucous, and incredibly fast-paced. These women talk so fast that I found myself gasping for air. What do they talk about? I haven’t a clue only that I need oxygen after being made privy to it. It’s a bit frightening to be perfectly honest. A man would get cut into pieces in such an environment and he would have no chance of escaping the tyranny of the chatter. This is what women do when they are together. They sharpen their teeth and practice their best debasing gestures. In fact, they talk about men. In this case it’s the men who will rush the brushing brides out into the street into some ornate bedroom somewhere where the sex will not seem particularly memorable for either party.
The free woman with extra cash in this film must spend it all on a wedding because we all know that such an event is everything a real woman should be striving for. Weddings are everything and seem to develop way more importance than the actual marriage itself. Indeed, the marriage is an afterthought that must be endured after the great spectacle has been utterly absorbed. The men in this film simply do not care what ornate and elaborate thing their soon-to-be wives decide to bring into the wedding ceremony. They could care less about all the fancy accouterments and the dazzling displays that are intended in this film strictly for show and to out-do the planning of the other woman. Men are strictly hangers-on in this film and it’s best if they keep themselves silent and decidedly out of the way.
The performances in this film are all relatively effective. Anne Hathaway is very good in a role that she is really better than. She’s a talented serious actress who has the ability to collect any number of roles making films that audiences actually think about afterward. Her performance in “Rachael Getting Married” is a perfect example of the kind of actress she truly is. Granted, she has every right to make mindless fluff but I just don’t imagine that she has to. Kate Hudson seems best suited for screwball comedy and is remarkably good at using her body and gestures for comedic effect. In this film she is best when she’s reacting to something another character has said. She’s marvelously attentive and her timing is exquisite. Candice Bergen plays the queen bitch role with a tremendous amount of gusto. Her character possesses a cold, impenetrable exterior caging a warm, loving heart. In this film, she’s fairly totemic in her characterization and her presence is felt throughout.
Overall, this film isn’t particularly special but it features two of the most intriguing actresses of our era. Both of them are capable of extraordinary work and I suspect that they will find roles that are emotionally and psychologically challenging for both performer and audiences alike. This film doesn’t nothing that is particularly original and when they aren’t fighting it devolves into rightful inanity. The story doesn’t much matter in the end and once they have stopped tearing each other’s hair out the film fizzles to a dead stop.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Film Review--Les Avaleuses (Female Vampire)
Les Avaleuses (Female Vampire)
directed by Jesus Franco
written by Gérard Brisseau and Jesus Franco
starring Lina Romay, Jack Taylor, Alice Arno, Jesus Franco, Luis Barboo, Jean-Pierre Bouyxou
Female Vampire is nothing more than a rather drab soft core porno with a female character who drains the life out of her victims when she’s performing oral sex on them. The film is essentially wall-to-wall nudity with no plot to speak of. There are many scenes of boring sex that seem to go on for an eternity. Perhaps the only real draw is the voluptuous body of lead actress Lina Romay. It’s the only thing this film has going for it and it’s on display for the duration of the film. Apparently she’s something of a cult icon amongst those who can actually tolerate Jesus Franco as a director. For the rest of us, she’s nothing special and if this film is anything to go by devoid of any operating personality.
The story, or lack of it, involves Countess Irina Karlstein (Romay). The film opens promisingly enough with a bare chested Irina walking ever so slowly toward the camera. She’s wearing merely a cape and thigh high leather boots. The camera fetishizes her eyes, the cape, her breasts, her eyes and her boots in single frame shots that seem to have no discernible purpose beyond titillating those lucky few who find themselves fixated on objects that they in turn sexualize for their own fun and profit. The camera seems particularly drawn to her breasts which are given so much screen time they eventually lose whatever power they once possessed. Next, she approaches a farmer of some sort. She again moves slowly and soon enough she’s giving him head and he’s collapsing in anguish. It’s probably the best blow job he’s ever had in his life and the sheer pleasure of it is enough to vanquish him from the land of the living. Irina kills a few more, including women, and never loses the blank expression plastered on her face. She’s also mute which somehow adds to whatever mystique the film makers are going for.
There is a doctor named Roberts (Franco) who seems to think that a vampire serial killer is taking their prey but nothing much is done to further this story line. It’s hard to tell considering most of the film is consumed with sexual encounters that serve no decisive purpose. Irina is apparently insatiable and she can’t have enough of the fucking and sucking. She even writhes around with a rolled up carpet and tries to hump the bed post. She continues to writhe at every possible moment including while taking a bath. She is supposed to be the Queen of Carnality and represent the chthonian nature of sexuality. She also comes across as a lousy lay although exceedingly confident when she’s using her mouth and her tongue. There are several scenes where she plays with her nipples and licks her lips and its about as much of a turn on as an outbreak of boils on one’s face although there are probably people who get off on that as well.
Just like all porn the sex here becomes redundant after a short while. I understand that some prints include inserts of hardcore sex which would at least have the added value of capture and containment to alleviate the tenacious boredom that afflicts every scene. There is one pointless scene where Irina shows up at some sort of dyke sanctuary and they’ve got a luscious blonde chained up with slash marks all over her body. That introduces a more interesting element into the film although by the time Irina is getting whipped with a birch rod it loses its erotic appeal. It’s utterly pointless and does nothing to edify anyone who finds themselves trapped into viewing this thing. I never thought sadism could come off as so utterly banal but they manage to strip it of its sordid glamour in this film which is certainly the exact opposite of what they are attempting.
The film isn’t bad enough to be good and it takes its ludicrous story way too seriously. Still, it is an interesting idea and does have a fuzzy logic to it. Apparently Irina bites the lucky recipient of her love in the genital region and manages to drain them of all their fluids. It’s impossible to imagine how practical this is because it requires such a violent oral sex technique that manages to literally suck so hard that the person simply perishes from the experience. It is true that every orgasm is a little death and that there are succubi who pretty much do the same thing. So, it’s possible that the Great Harlot could be talented enough to perform the necessary action. Apparently she drains her victims of blood but this isn’t demonstrated either which is a major disappointment.
This much nudity only works if there are real horrors to contend with. If there is carnage afoot with sexy blood splatters on faces and breasts then it is perhaps necessary to maintain a level of eroticism within the context of the film.. But here it is just bad porno with lousy music generating zero heat and it clearly fails to satisfy the edicts of what is intended. Sex grows dull very quickly unless it is part of a viable story that is actually worth the effort. Here it is the entire focus and one might as well discard the entire vampire element because nothing at all is done to exploit it. I can believe that Irina is something of a vampire because she does drain the essence from people and that this is the only way she can continue living. That much is clear. It’s only that the sex scenes are way too long. If they were cut back by 80 percent the story might have had room to develop. Unfortunately that is not the case in this film.
There are actresses one would be delighted seeing run around naked for an entire film. But none of them are the kind that ever take their clothes off period. This in turn only accentuates their desirability. Here we have an actress who is playing a character that is supposed to be the most desirable woman on the planet. She is supposed to represent raw sexual need at its basest form. Yet, there is nothing particularly lust-worthy of her performance. Nudity becomes trite after a while and this film proves it. The only time nudity works in a film is when it is important to the story line. Otherwise its merely gratuitous and pointless. I suppose the film hinges on how bad the members of the audience want to fuck Lina Romay. She is certainly attractive enough to garner considerable attention but she’s only a body in this film and wholly without even a hint of a viable personality. She’s flat and dull and lazy and all she brings to the film is meat. It’s a shame because this subject is endlessly fascinating. It could have been made into a terrifying film that explores all of the psychological aspects of such sadistic behavior. It could have done so with limited sex and nudity and still come off as necessary and true.
Overall, this film is about as lousy a “vampire” film as has ever been made. There is no horror, no desire, and no purpose. The film tends to drain the audience of their desire to see any more as the film is rolling. Indeed, one can only sit through it by fast forwarding through all the sex scenes because there is no reason to sit through porn that does not serve a legitimate purpose. Normally, porn is supposed to elicit lustful thoughts and a deliberate mechanical reaction to the stimulating material being presented. I admit that there was a bit of that in this film which only proves its intent all along. It doesn’t want to tell a story. It simply wants to get its audience hot and bothered which is fine for a porn film but not for something that pretends to be cinema.
directed by Jesus Franco
written by Gérard Brisseau and Jesus Franco
starring Lina Romay, Jack Taylor, Alice Arno, Jesus Franco, Luis Barboo, Jean-Pierre Bouyxou
Female Vampire is nothing more than a rather drab soft core porno with a female character who drains the life out of her victims when she’s performing oral sex on them. The film is essentially wall-to-wall nudity with no plot to speak of. There are many scenes of boring sex that seem to go on for an eternity. Perhaps the only real draw is the voluptuous body of lead actress Lina Romay. It’s the only thing this film has going for it and it’s on display for the duration of the film. Apparently she’s something of a cult icon amongst those who can actually tolerate Jesus Franco as a director. For the rest of us, she’s nothing special and if this film is anything to go by devoid of any operating personality.
The story, or lack of it, involves Countess Irina Karlstein (Romay). The film opens promisingly enough with a bare chested Irina walking ever so slowly toward the camera. She’s wearing merely a cape and thigh high leather boots. The camera fetishizes her eyes, the cape, her breasts, her eyes and her boots in single frame shots that seem to have no discernible purpose beyond titillating those lucky few who find themselves fixated on objects that they in turn sexualize for their own fun and profit. The camera seems particularly drawn to her breasts which are given so much screen time they eventually lose whatever power they once possessed. Next, she approaches a farmer of some sort. She again moves slowly and soon enough she’s giving him head and he’s collapsing in anguish. It’s probably the best blow job he’s ever had in his life and the sheer pleasure of it is enough to vanquish him from the land of the living. Irina kills a few more, including women, and never loses the blank expression plastered on her face. She’s also mute which somehow adds to whatever mystique the film makers are going for.
There is a doctor named Roberts (Franco) who seems to think that a vampire serial killer is taking their prey but nothing much is done to further this story line. It’s hard to tell considering most of the film is consumed with sexual encounters that serve no decisive purpose. Irina is apparently insatiable and she can’t have enough of the fucking and sucking. She even writhes around with a rolled up carpet and tries to hump the bed post. She continues to writhe at every possible moment including while taking a bath. She is supposed to be the Queen of Carnality and represent the chthonian nature of sexuality. She also comes across as a lousy lay although exceedingly confident when she’s using her mouth and her tongue. There are several scenes where she plays with her nipples and licks her lips and its about as much of a turn on as an outbreak of boils on one’s face although there are probably people who get off on that as well.
Just like all porn the sex here becomes redundant after a short while. I understand that some prints include inserts of hardcore sex which would at least have the added value of capture and containment to alleviate the tenacious boredom that afflicts every scene. There is one pointless scene where Irina shows up at some sort of dyke sanctuary and they’ve got a luscious blonde chained up with slash marks all over her body. That introduces a more interesting element into the film although by the time Irina is getting whipped with a birch rod it loses its erotic appeal. It’s utterly pointless and does nothing to edify anyone who finds themselves trapped into viewing this thing. I never thought sadism could come off as so utterly banal but they manage to strip it of its sordid glamour in this film which is certainly the exact opposite of what they are attempting.
The film isn’t bad enough to be good and it takes its ludicrous story way too seriously. Still, it is an interesting idea and does have a fuzzy logic to it. Apparently Irina bites the lucky recipient of her love in the genital region and manages to drain them of all their fluids. It’s impossible to imagine how practical this is because it requires such a violent oral sex technique that manages to literally suck so hard that the person simply perishes from the experience. It is true that every orgasm is a little death and that there are succubi who pretty much do the same thing. So, it’s possible that the Great Harlot could be talented enough to perform the necessary action. Apparently she drains her victims of blood but this isn’t demonstrated either which is a major disappointment.
This much nudity only works if there are real horrors to contend with. If there is carnage afoot with sexy blood splatters on faces and breasts then it is perhaps necessary to maintain a level of eroticism within the context of the film.. But here it is just bad porno with lousy music generating zero heat and it clearly fails to satisfy the edicts of what is intended. Sex grows dull very quickly unless it is part of a viable story that is actually worth the effort. Here it is the entire focus and one might as well discard the entire vampire element because nothing at all is done to exploit it. I can believe that Irina is something of a vampire because she does drain the essence from people and that this is the only way she can continue living. That much is clear. It’s only that the sex scenes are way too long. If they were cut back by 80 percent the story might have had room to develop. Unfortunately that is not the case in this film.
There are actresses one would be delighted seeing run around naked for an entire film. But none of them are the kind that ever take their clothes off period. This in turn only accentuates their desirability. Here we have an actress who is playing a character that is supposed to be the most desirable woman on the planet. She is supposed to represent raw sexual need at its basest form. Yet, there is nothing particularly lust-worthy of her performance. Nudity becomes trite after a while and this film proves it. The only time nudity works in a film is when it is important to the story line. Otherwise its merely gratuitous and pointless. I suppose the film hinges on how bad the members of the audience want to fuck Lina Romay. She is certainly attractive enough to garner considerable attention but she’s only a body in this film and wholly without even a hint of a viable personality. She’s flat and dull and lazy and all she brings to the film is meat. It’s a shame because this subject is endlessly fascinating. It could have been made into a terrifying film that explores all of the psychological aspects of such sadistic behavior. It could have done so with limited sex and nudity and still come off as necessary and true.
Overall, this film is about as lousy a “vampire” film as has ever been made. There is no horror, no desire, and no purpose. The film tends to drain the audience of their desire to see any more as the film is rolling. Indeed, one can only sit through it by fast forwarding through all the sex scenes because there is no reason to sit through porn that does not serve a legitimate purpose. Normally, porn is supposed to elicit lustful thoughts and a deliberate mechanical reaction to the stimulating material being presented. I admit that there was a bit of that in this film which only proves its intent all along. It doesn’t want to tell a story. It simply wants to get its audience hot and bothered which is fine for a porn film but not for something that pretends to be cinema.
Film Review--Coraline
Coraline
directed by Henry Selick
written by Henry Selick
based on the novella by Neil Gaiman
starring the voices of Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, Jennifer Saunders, Dawn French, Keith David, John Hodgman, Robert Bailey Jr., Ian McShane
Based on the short book of the same name by Neil Gaiman, this stop-action animated fantasy film creates an exquisitely crafted world of immense beauty that is both beguiling and disturbing.
A young girl named Coraline Jones (Fanning) has moved into a new home with her parents and finds herself emotionally abandoned and neglected. She takes to exploring the house and discovers a hidden door that has been wallpapered in. When she opens it she discovers it has been bricked over. That evening she awakens and sees a mouse scurrying out of the room. She follows it to the door and apprehends that it leads through a tunnel to a strange new world that resembles her old house only everything is brighter, more vibrant and alive. She meets a woman who closely resembles her own mother except she’s way more attentive and fun plus she’s got buttons for eyes. This woman claims to be her “Other Mother” (Hatcher) and that she and her husband (Hodgman) have been waiting for her. Coraline soon realizes that she has entered a world of great times and a non-stop barrage of exciting things to do. Her old world is bland and tiresome in comparison and she considers never going back.
The film possesses a tremendous scope. The atmosphere is expansive and there is a genuine sense of openness throughout the film. The “Other” parents exist in a world that epitomizes convenience and infinite creative possibilities. It promises Coraline a life filled with an endless banquet of surprises and everything she could possibly ever desire. It’s alluring in a most relentless sort of way and she slowly realizes that there is much more beneath the surface that might not have her best interests in mind. She meets a stray cat (David) who is just like the cat who stalks her old home only this one can speak. He warns her about her “Other Mother”. Coraline heeds his advice and with the help of a stone with a hole in it she has received from her neighbor Miss Spink (Saunders) she begins to gather up what she needs to escape.
There are so many magical scenes in this film and they are all impossibly bright and colorful. It’s truly an adventure land of tickling, mesmeric sensations that elevate the viewer onto a more profoundly scintillating plane where creativity reigns every aspect of life. Toys are alive, a neighbor named Mr. B. (McShane) conducts a circus featuring mice, and Coraline’s general experience is consumed with frenetic motion and a constant supply of ecstatic moments that are exceedingly seductive. Soon, however, a cold reality settles in and she becomes acutely aware that there is a malefactor afoot. Life in Lorelei isn’t the smorgasbord of delight she originally envisioned it to be.
The idea of a lonely child escaping into a fabulous land populated with every grand and lovely thing they could ever imagine is a terribly charming one. Sure, it’s very common and has been the platform for stories such as “Alice in Wonderland”, “The Wizard of Oz”, and “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”. The child must take action or avoid various perils in order to escape on the other side with their wits and abilities intact. Coraline is thrust into a world of magic that proves to be too good to be true.
This is a tale that questions easy rearing where children are provided with everything without having to work for it in any capacity whatsoever. Coraline finds herself in just such a situation with “Other” parents who insist on giving her everything she could ever think of without asking anything of her. It’s not an ideal environment for a child as it teaches them to expect that life will always acquiesce with their wishes and that they will always have Mummy and Daddy to fall back on if times get tough. Coraline is a fiercely independant girl and it is this independence that has strained her relationship with their parents. They most likely assume that she can take care of herself so they err in the other direction and pay her no attention whatsoever.
The most obvious difference between the book and the film is the film’s inclusion of a new character named Wybie Lovat (Bailey Jr.) It sets up an entirely different dynamic from the book because it enjoins teamwork with the fantastic narrative. Coraline didn’t need anyone else in the book and the addition of the new character takes something away from her quest to find her parents. There is a small subplot about Wybie’s grandmother’s missing sister which is solved and adds more severity to a key element of the plot. Mostly, the film follows the book closely and there is nothing major to upset oneself over. The tone is a bit looser, it isn’t as dark, and certain visuals move beyond anything the book could possibly be able to describe. Mainly, Miss Forcible’s enormous breasts. They are really massive and one wonders what’s behind the decision to include them. Certainly, kiddies aren’t that into them and they happen to appear on a wrinkled old bat so it’s not like they are sexy or anything.
There is all the fervor and strangeness of the book and the overall energy is maintained through to the end. The book is more terrifying and more ghastly in its depictions of certain scenes. There’s more of a chthonian feel to the book as it slips nicely into a very dark place where there is very real danger. The danger in the film is a bit more cartoonish like the animated version of the Wicked Stepmother in “Cinderella”. Indeed, the “Other Mother” becomes something of a monster and turns her husband into a pumpkin like creature who can hardly speak.
Coraline proves to be a fine sleuth as the locates the necessary items to save herself as well as others she has met during confinement that prove the “Other Mother’s” divine wickedness for all to see. The film does a good job with the “Other Mother” and she’s deliciously primal when she transforms herself into a monster. She’s scary enough and it does seem that she might be capable of eating Coraline and perhaps the cat. She’s tyrannical and driven by an urgency that knows no barriers until of course she is confronted with one who is more clever than she. She is ill prepared to take on Coraline who is determined in her own right to leave the realm and return her life back to what is was before her discovery.
There is something interesting about the symbolism of the tunnel between the two homes. It is a long womb like apparatus which Coraline must crawl through both to reach the magic kingdom and to return back to her dull, listless life. Each mother possesses a womb that is connected to their opposite’s womb and the “Other Mother’s” womb is attempting to destroy her rival’s by any means necessary. The old and dead womb offers no sustenance and no hope for a viable future. It’s decrepit and Coraline is justified in attempting to escape it. Unfortunately the new womb is devouring and needy and intent on possessing and smothering her with mock affection that hinges on a specific betrayal of Coraline’s autonomy, her Self. At one end the future is bleak because it is built on a past that does not recognize Coraline for who she is. Her neighbors always get her name wrong and nobody provides her with the attention she craves. On the other end she gets all the attention but must destroy part of her true self in order to maintain it. She must in fact sell her very soul for material possessions and entertainments that will also fail to provide the proper nourishment she requires. The old world is relentlessly boring but at least she possesses the opportunity to invent herself according to her own designs. Such an option does not exist within the realm of a woman who insists on creating Caroline according to her own specifications.
In a sense one can view this film as anti-Fascist in the sense that Caroline is forced to confront a ritualized life in a specific order that demands absolute submission and punishes severely those who dare to challenge the state. The new formed state in this case promises safety, continuity, and well being. It is an ideal model for the Self to remain fettered to a codified way of living bereft from derelicts or threats from outside the realm. The only rule is subservience and an admission that the state is supreme in all matters and can never be doubted. The only escape is through sabotage and a wholesale destruction of the state and a return to a freer, less ordered existence that nevertheless encourages a more open and less didactic expression of Self-hood. Yet, the perceived pleasures of the State are but mere entertainments to keep the captives mollified and to prevent them from raising their voices in discontent and anger against the order.
Coraline is truly trapped between two worlds that prove ultimately to deny her the type of environment that will best encourage her to create a viable future for herself. She must in fact create a life out of the remnants of each world in order to get what she needs. She prefers in the end to be back in the dusty, emotionally cold world because she has learned to assemble a life out of the scraps she apprehends in the familiar. Objects become projects with which to determine the order of her existence. She is free to create her own Self without being constantly reminded that she is living in a world that denies her own creativity by forcing her to forever acknowledge the work of another who remains an oppressive force.
The performances in this film manage to effectively bring the book alive. Dakota Fanning conveys all of Coraline’s doubts and fears throughout the course of the film. Teri Hatcher brings the bitch-goddess to life and creates a definite separation between the two mothers. Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders, both “Absolutely Fabulous” alums, capture the lunacy of their characters and their essential pretentious bombast. Keith David plays the Cat as slinky and a bit mischievous. He sounds like a jazz man introducing one of his latest compositions.
Overall, this film is proof of what painstaking dedication, in this case over four years, can accomplish if the intent is pure and the narrative solidly constructed. The film is simply gorgeous to look at from start to finish and each character is genuinely brought to life. Coraline Jones is one of the most fascinating young heroines to ever be showcased in a cinematic production. She’s bold, inventive and wholly ingenious plus she possesses a never-ceasing capacity for wonder which informs her perceptions of the world. She’s also observant and smart enough to accept the advice of others who warn her of imminent danger. The film will remain a work of art worth returning to again and again. As long as there is celluloid this film will be analyzed and put before young children who will respond like all children respond to rollicking entertainment that dazzles and shines.
directed by Henry Selick
written by Henry Selick
based on the novella by Neil Gaiman
starring the voices of Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, Jennifer Saunders, Dawn French, Keith David, John Hodgman, Robert Bailey Jr., Ian McShane
Based on the short book of the same name by Neil Gaiman, this stop-action animated fantasy film creates an exquisitely crafted world of immense beauty that is both beguiling and disturbing.
A young girl named Coraline Jones (Fanning) has moved into a new home with her parents and finds herself emotionally abandoned and neglected. She takes to exploring the house and discovers a hidden door that has been wallpapered in. When she opens it she discovers it has been bricked over. That evening she awakens and sees a mouse scurrying out of the room. She follows it to the door and apprehends that it leads through a tunnel to a strange new world that resembles her old house only everything is brighter, more vibrant and alive. She meets a woman who closely resembles her own mother except she’s way more attentive and fun plus she’s got buttons for eyes. This woman claims to be her “Other Mother” (Hatcher) and that she and her husband (Hodgman) have been waiting for her. Coraline soon realizes that she has entered a world of great times and a non-stop barrage of exciting things to do. Her old world is bland and tiresome in comparison and she considers never going back.
The film possesses a tremendous scope. The atmosphere is expansive and there is a genuine sense of openness throughout the film. The “Other” parents exist in a world that epitomizes convenience and infinite creative possibilities. It promises Coraline a life filled with an endless banquet of surprises and everything she could possibly ever desire. It’s alluring in a most relentless sort of way and she slowly realizes that there is much more beneath the surface that might not have her best interests in mind. She meets a stray cat (David) who is just like the cat who stalks her old home only this one can speak. He warns her about her “Other Mother”. Coraline heeds his advice and with the help of a stone with a hole in it she has received from her neighbor Miss Spink (Saunders) she begins to gather up what she needs to escape.
There are so many magical scenes in this film and they are all impossibly bright and colorful. It’s truly an adventure land of tickling, mesmeric sensations that elevate the viewer onto a more profoundly scintillating plane where creativity reigns every aspect of life. Toys are alive, a neighbor named Mr. B. (McShane) conducts a circus featuring mice, and Coraline’s general experience is consumed with frenetic motion and a constant supply of ecstatic moments that are exceedingly seductive. Soon, however, a cold reality settles in and she becomes acutely aware that there is a malefactor afoot. Life in Lorelei isn’t the smorgasbord of delight she originally envisioned it to be.
The idea of a lonely child escaping into a fabulous land populated with every grand and lovely thing they could ever imagine is a terribly charming one. Sure, it’s very common and has been the platform for stories such as “Alice in Wonderland”, “The Wizard of Oz”, and “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”. The child must take action or avoid various perils in order to escape on the other side with their wits and abilities intact. Coraline is thrust into a world of magic that proves to be too good to be true.
This is a tale that questions easy rearing where children are provided with everything without having to work for it in any capacity whatsoever. Coraline finds herself in just such a situation with “Other” parents who insist on giving her everything she could ever think of without asking anything of her. It’s not an ideal environment for a child as it teaches them to expect that life will always acquiesce with their wishes and that they will always have Mummy and Daddy to fall back on if times get tough. Coraline is a fiercely independant girl and it is this independence that has strained her relationship with their parents. They most likely assume that she can take care of herself so they err in the other direction and pay her no attention whatsoever.
The most obvious difference between the book and the film is the film’s inclusion of a new character named Wybie Lovat (Bailey Jr.) It sets up an entirely different dynamic from the book because it enjoins teamwork with the fantastic narrative. Coraline didn’t need anyone else in the book and the addition of the new character takes something away from her quest to find her parents. There is a small subplot about Wybie’s grandmother’s missing sister which is solved and adds more severity to a key element of the plot. Mostly, the film follows the book closely and there is nothing major to upset oneself over. The tone is a bit looser, it isn’t as dark, and certain visuals move beyond anything the book could possibly be able to describe. Mainly, Miss Forcible’s enormous breasts. They are really massive and one wonders what’s behind the decision to include them. Certainly, kiddies aren’t that into them and they happen to appear on a wrinkled old bat so it’s not like they are sexy or anything.
There is all the fervor and strangeness of the book and the overall energy is maintained through to the end. The book is more terrifying and more ghastly in its depictions of certain scenes. There’s more of a chthonian feel to the book as it slips nicely into a very dark place where there is very real danger. The danger in the film is a bit more cartoonish like the animated version of the Wicked Stepmother in “Cinderella”. Indeed, the “Other Mother” becomes something of a monster and turns her husband into a pumpkin like creature who can hardly speak.
Coraline proves to be a fine sleuth as the locates the necessary items to save herself as well as others she has met during confinement that prove the “Other Mother’s” divine wickedness for all to see. The film does a good job with the “Other Mother” and she’s deliciously primal when she transforms herself into a monster. She’s scary enough and it does seem that she might be capable of eating Coraline and perhaps the cat. She’s tyrannical and driven by an urgency that knows no barriers until of course she is confronted with one who is more clever than she. She is ill prepared to take on Coraline who is determined in her own right to leave the realm and return her life back to what is was before her discovery.
There is something interesting about the symbolism of the tunnel between the two homes. It is a long womb like apparatus which Coraline must crawl through both to reach the magic kingdom and to return back to her dull, listless life. Each mother possesses a womb that is connected to their opposite’s womb and the “Other Mother’s” womb is attempting to destroy her rival’s by any means necessary. The old and dead womb offers no sustenance and no hope for a viable future. It’s decrepit and Coraline is justified in attempting to escape it. Unfortunately the new womb is devouring and needy and intent on possessing and smothering her with mock affection that hinges on a specific betrayal of Coraline’s autonomy, her Self. At one end the future is bleak because it is built on a past that does not recognize Coraline for who she is. Her neighbors always get her name wrong and nobody provides her with the attention she craves. On the other end she gets all the attention but must destroy part of her true self in order to maintain it. She must in fact sell her very soul for material possessions and entertainments that will also fail to provide the proper nourishment she requires. The old world is relentlessly boring but at least she possesses the opportunity to invent herself according to her own designs. Such an option does not exist within the realm of a woman who insists on creating Caroline according to her own specifications.
In a sense one can view this film as anti-Fascist in the sense that Caroline is forced to confront a ritualized life in a specific order that demands absolute submission and punishes severely those who dare to challenge the state. The new formed state in this case promises safety, continuity, and well being. It is an ideal model for the Self to remain fettered to a codified way of living bereft from derelicts or threats from outside the realm. The only rule is subservience and an admission that the state is supreme in all matters and can never be doubted. The only escape is through sabotage and a wholesale destruction of the state and a return to a freer, less ordered existence that nevertheless encourages a more open and less didactic expression of Self-hood. Yet, the perceived pleasures of the State are but mere entertainments to keep the captives mollified and to prevent them from raising their voices in discontent and anger against the order.
Coraline is truly trapped between two worlds that prove ultimately to deny her the type of environment that will best encourage her to create a viable future for herself. She must in fact create a life out of the remnants of each world in order to get what she needs. She prefers in the end to be back in the dusty, emotionally cold world because she has learned to assemble a life out of the scraps she apprehends in the familiar. Objects become projects with which to determine the order of her existence. She is free to create her own Self without being constantly reminded that she is living in a world that denies her own creativity by forcing her to forever acknowledge the work of another who remains an oppressive force.
The performances in this film manage to effectively bring the book alive. Dakota Fanning conveys all of Coraline’s doubts and fears throughout the course of the film. Teri Hatcher brings the bitch-goddess to life and creates a definite separation between the two mothers. Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders, both “Absolutely Fabulous” alums, capture the lunacy of their characters and their essential pretentious bombast. Keith David plays the Cat as slinky and a bit mischievous. He sounds like a jazz man introducing one of his latest compositions.
Overall, this film is proof of what painstaking dedication, in this case over four years, can accomplish if the intent is pure and the narrative solidly constructed. The film is simply gorgeous to look at from start to finish and each character is genuinely brought to life. Coraline Jones is one of the most fascinating young heroines to ever be showcased in a cinematic production. She’s bold, inventive and wholly ingenious plus she possesses a never-ceasing capacity for wonder which informs her perceptions of the world. She’s also observant and smart enough to accept the advice of others who warn her of imminent danger. The film will remain a work of art worth returning to again and again. As long as there is celluloid this film will be analyzed and put before young children who will respond like all children respond to rollicking entertainment that dazzles and shines.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Film Review--Inkheart
Inkheart
directed by Iain Softley
written by David Lindsay Abaire
based on the novel by Cornelia Funke
starring Brendan Fraser, Sienna Guillory, Eliza Bennett, Paul Bettany, Helen Mirren, Andy Serkis, Jim Broadbent
Words can be brutal, vicious things once they are properly unleashed. In this film a 12 year old girl discovers she shares her father’s terrible gift of bringing books to life. Along with her father she tries to track down her mother who disappeared when she was three. In this fantasy action film books routinely come alive and their texts are employed for various means both nefarious and honest.
Maggie Folchart (Bennett) is not exactly a typical child. She’s devoted to books and takes great pleasure curling up in a corner absorbed in some fantastic tale or another. She travels with her father Mo (Fraser) on a quest to find a copy of the book, “Inkheart”. Mo goes into the book shop and hears strange voices coming out of a book. He soon realizes that he has finally discovered the book which has been out of print for many years. He opens it and inadvertently summons a man named Dustfinger (Bettany) who claims to have come out of the book many years before when Mo had read to Maggie. They part but soon Mo is surrounded by a horrific party of villains who have also come from the book. Maggie soon realizes that her father has not really been looking for the book but rather for her mother. It is also discovered that the mother Resa (Guillory) has somehow been sucked into the book when three of the villains came out. The film is a rescue mission in which the lovely Resa is firstly chained and then bound up in a hemp net. Her dire circumstances inform the film with a decisive urgency.
The leader of the band of troublemakers is named Capricorn (Serkis) and he has made quite a place for himself outside of the book. He lives in a castle and has control over his minions who really are a ghastly lot. They are truly a uniform block of exceedingly bad men who are without a decent instinct among them. They are good for the kids because there is nothing ambiguous about their behavior. They are simply bad and this makes it all the more easier to root for the traditionally honorable characters who find themselves trapped in a nightmare scenario that they must use their great and terrible powers to escape from.
The author of the book is a man named Fenoglio (Broadbent) and he’s utterly delighted to discover that the characters who have come to life are precisely as he has imagined them. He is employed to use his writing skills to solve the terrible dilemma so that everyone might be set free from Capricorn’s unsavory realm.
This is certainly a film that celebrates the power of the written word and its ability to change landscapes and influence readers to move beyond their limitations. Numerous works including “The Wizard of Oz”, “Arabian Nights” and “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” are brought forth in various guises to provide the film with a firm link to the annals of classic literature. Many familiar staples are explored including the heroic quest, the damsel in distress, and the hero who discovers they have magic powers they must use to extricate themselves out of a dangerous situation. In tried and true form the hero here is but a child who has inherited a great power that is nevertheless exceedingly dangerous if it is used without caution. The possibilities are indeed endless and one imagines the impact on our world that certain infamous texts might enjoy. Books such as the Marquis de Sade’s “120 Days of Sodom”, or George Bataille’s “The Trial of Gilles de Rais” would certainly add a bit of spice to any environment. These are perhaps the kinds of books that should be explored in the sequel.
Sienna Guillory is in this film but she makes a lasting impression with her otherworldly beauty that is luminescent and startling to behold. She makes for a worthy distressed lass and her every movement while constrained is but an exquisite form of torment. She does quite a lot despite being unable to speak and it’s clear why Mo is such an impossibly lucky bastard to have her.
As this is a typical story that doesn’t do anything particularly alarming in its telling, it’s no mystery what will happen when the film reaches it’s conclusion. Yes, the story is predictable in terms of whether or not the right people get out alive and the wrong people perish but there is a consistency that is supremely effective throughout the film.
Helen Mirren is delightfully comical as Elinor Loredan, Mo’s fussy and fastidious Aunt who is something of a chore. She’s tight fisted and very protective of her glorious library. Naturally she is horrified when the band of cretins thoughtlessly destroy many of her books including a rare Persian manuscript that she has on display in a special glass case. It’s an instance that articulates the plight of modern civilization where books are no longer treasured by the masses and often treated with open hostility by the very children who need the continuing nourishment that books provide. The stories presented in this film are timeless and have served numerous cultures from their inception. The film wants its audience to become obsessed with reading and studying the classics or at least modern classics that are legitimately capable of transforming lives.
The special effects in the film are seamless and the alternative worlds they create are wholly believable. This film is magical in that it carries the viewer along into a different world that is nevertheless populated with figures and scenes that ought to be familiar to all. Of course the reality is that we have taken such books for granted and their authority has become diminished in the minds of too many over time. Still, the film insists they are necessary components to any society that pretends to call itself a Culture.
The performances in this film are all viable for the genre. Brendan Fraser has bankrolled his everyman persona in a number of films over the course of his career. In this film, he doesn’t play against type and allows the other actors to play off of him. He’s congenial, inoffensive if not a bit bland. Still he isn’t being asked to carry this film on his good name alone. There are several other performers who do their bit to push the film along to where it needs to go. Eliza Bennett is a real find. Maggie’s got all the cockiness of youth coupled with a genuinely charming disposition which is necessary to sell this type of family movie. Andy Serkis is clearly having a diabolically good time throughout this film. Capricorn’s eyes are consumed with menace as he casts his web of infamy on anyone who dares to get in his way. He possesses a terrible charisma in his own right that is beguiling for much of the film. Sienna Guillory is as mentioned a graceful, elegant and comely creature whose difficulties in the film are made more horrible because she is such a shatteringly delightful presence. It’s always better in a film to rescue a woman who exudes a natural beauty that is disarming and impossible to ignore. At least cinematically it seems to put a higher value on the mission. Helen Mirren is a oddball in this film. Her character is a combination of style and severity. She’s not the kind of woman one would ever want to scorn.
Overall, this film does everything it sets out to do. It’s a barn-raising tale informed by something that is infinitely valuable in a society that pretends to call itself literate. It values both the spoken and written word in a time when these are being obscured by the feeding trough of technology. It’s an interesting dichotomy between an expensive, effects-heavy film that relies on ingenious applications of the latest technology and a decisively low tech form of entertainment and illumination. In the end the word prevails and the final word in this film is that good stories are viable, necessary creations that possess an uncanny power to alter consciousness and transform the reader’s entire approach to life. Also, spoken words should not be employed lightly or taken for granted. They can harm as much as soothe and they can never be taken back once they are uttered.
directed by Iain Softley
written by David Lindsay Abaire
based on the novel by Cornelia Funke
starring Brendan Fraser, Sienna Guillory, Eliza Bennett, Paul Bettany, Helen Mirren, Andy Serkis, Jim Broadbent
Words can be brutal, vicious things once they are properly unleashed. In this film a 12 year old girl discovers she shares her father’s terrible gift of bringing books to life. Along with her father she tries to track down her mother who disappeared when she was three. In this fantasy action film books routinely come alive and their texts are employed for various means both nefarious and honest.
Maggie Folchart (Bennett) is not exactly a typical child. She’s devoted to books and takes great pleasure curling up in a corner absorbed in some fantastic tale or another. She travels with her father Mo (Fraser) on a quest to find a copy of the book, “Inkheart”. Mo goes into the book shop and hears strange voices coming out of a book. He soon realizes that he has finally discovered the book which has been out of print for many years. He opens it and inadvertently summons a man named Dustfinger (Bettany) who claims to have come out of the book many years before when Mo had read to Maggie. They part but soon Mo is surrounded by a horrific party of villains who have also come from the book. Maggie soon realizes that her father has not really been looking for the book but rather for her mother. It is also discovered that the mother Resa (Guillory) has somehow been sucked into the book when three of the villains came out. The film is a rescue mission in which the lovely Resa is firstly chained and then bound up in a hemp net. Her dire circumstances inform the film with a decisive urgency.
The leader of the band of troublemakers is named Capricorn (Serkis) and he has made quite a place for himself outside of the book. He lives in a castle and has control over his minions who really are a ghastly lot. They are truly a uniform block of exceedingly bad men who are without a decent instinct among them. They are good for the kids because there is nothing ambiguous about their behavior. They are simply bad and this makes it all the more easier to root for the traditionally honorable characters who find themselves trapped in a nightmare scenario that they must use their great and terrible powers to escape from.
The author of the book is a man named Fenoglio (Broadbent) and he’s utterly delighted to discover that the characters who have come to life are precisely as he has imagined them. He is employed to use his writing skills to solve the terrible dilemma so that everyone might be set free from Capricorn’s unsavory realm.
This is certainly a film that celebrates the power of the written word and its ability to change landscapes and influence readers to move beyond their limitations. Numerous works including “The Wizard of Oz”, “Arabian Nights” and “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” are brought forth in various guises to provide the film with a firm link to the annals of classic literature. Many familiar staples are explored including the heroic quest, the damsel in distress, and the hero who discovers they have magic powers they must use to extricate themselves out of a dangerous situation. In tried and true form the hero here is but a child who has inherited a great power that is nevertheless exceedingly dangerous if it is used without caution. The possibilities are indeed endless and one imagines the impact on our world that certain infamous texts might enjoy. Books such as the Marquis de Sade’s “120 Days of Sodom”, or George Bataille’s “The Trial of Gilles de Rais” would certainly add a bit of spice to any environment. These are perhaps the kinds of books that should be explored in the sequel.
Sienna Guillory is in this film but she makes a lasting impression with her otherworldly beauty that is luminescent and startling to behold. She makes for a worthy distressed lass and her every movement while constrained is but an exquisite form of torment. She does quite a lot despite being unable to speak and it’s clear why Mo is such an impossibly lucky bastard to have her.
As this is a typical story that doesn’t do anything particularly alarming in its telling, it’s no mystery what will happen when the film reaches it’s conclusion. Yes, the story is predictable in terms of whether or not the right people get out alive and the wrong people perish but there is a consistency that is supremely effective throughout the film.
Helen Mirren is delightfully comical as Elinor Loredan, Mo’s fussy and fastidious Aunt who is something of a chore. She’s tight fisted and very protective of her glorious library. Naturally she is horrified when the band of cretins thoughtlessly destroy many of her books including a rare Persian manuscript that she has on display in a special glass case. It’s an instance that articulates the plight of modern civilization where books are no longer treasured by the masses and often treated with open hostility by the very children who need the continuing nourishment that books provide. The stories presented in this film are timeless and have served numerous cultures from their inception. The film wants its audience to become obsessed with reading and studying the classics or at least modern classics that are legitimately capable of transforming lives.
The special effects in the film are seamless and the alternative worlds they create are wholly believable. This film is magical in that it carries the viewer along into a different world that is nevertheless populated with figures and scenes that ought to be familiar to all. Of course the reality is that we have taken such books for granted and their authority has become diminished in the minds of too many over time. Still, the film insists they are necessary components to any society that pretends to call itself a Culture.
The performances in this film are all viable for the genre. Brendan Fraser has bankrolled his everyman persona in a number of films over the course of his career. In this film, he doesn’t play against type and allows the other actors to play off of him. He’s congenial, inoffensive if not a bit bland. Still he isn’t being asked to carry this film on his good name alone. There are several other performers who do their bit to push the film along to where it needs to go. Eliza Bennett is a real find. Maggie’s got all the cockiness of youth coupled with a genuinely charming disposition which is necessary to sell this type of family movie. Andy Serkis is clearly having a diabolically good time throughout this film. Capricorn’s eyes are consumed with menace as he casts his web of infamy on anyone who dares to get in his way. He possesses a terrible charisma in his own right that is beguiling for much of the film. Sienna Guillory is as mentioned a graceful, elegant and comely creature whose difficulties in the film are made more horrible because she is such a shatteringly delightful presence. It’s always better in a film to rescue a woman who exudes a natural beauty that is disarming and impossible to ignore. At least cinematically it seems to put a higher value on the mission. Helen Mirren is a oddball in this film. Her character is a combination of style and severity. She’s not the kind of woman one would ever want to scorn.
Overall, this film does everything it sets out to do. It’s a barn-raising tale informed by something that is infinitely valuable in a society that pretends to call itself literate. It values both the spoken and written word in a time when these are being obscured by the feeding trough of technology. It’s an interesting dichotomy between an expensive, effects-heavy film that relies on ingenious applications of the latest technology and a decisively low tech form of entertainment and illumination. In the end the word prevails and the final word in this film is that good stories are viable, necessary creations that possess an uncanny power to alter consciousness and transform the reader’s entire approach to life. Also, spoken words should not be employed lightly or taken for granted. They can harm as much as soothe and they can never be taken back once they are uttered.
Film Review--Revolutionary Road
Revolutionary Road
directed by Sam Mendes
written by Justin Haythe
based on the novel by Richard Yates
starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Michael Shannon, Kathy Bates, Richard Easton, David Harbour, Kathryn Hahn, Zoe Kazan, Dylan Baker, Jay O. Sanders
The human face is a mightily accurate barometer of emotion and intent. In this film director Sam Mendes focuses a considerable amount of attention on the visages of his lead actors leading to a succinct understanding of the characters’s various torments and disappointments. It maps out territory that is at times convoluted and exceedingly strange. Kate Winslet’s face tells many stories throughout this film. Her rage, frustration, fear, and even the occasional fit of what may pass for happiness are clearly written for everyone to see. Winslet is masterful here at conveying a considerable amount of information with a simple look. She does it unflinchingly as her character remains unaware of just how much she is revealing through her facial expressions.
Kate Winslet is April who is dissatisfied with the way things have developed in her life despite having done everything that society promotes as necessary to a vital, contributing life. When we first meet her she is an aspiring actress whose most recent play is universally loathed. She meets Frank Wheeler (DiCaprio) at a party and the pair are married. Frank convinces April that she’s just not that good at acting and she settles down to be a happy little housewife with her perfect kids, lovely and inviting home, and the latest in appliances. None of this helps her solve her quintessential dilemma which is to live a life that is freer, to see a future with more possibilities and less strain. It’s a breathtaking performance that comes together mostly through April’s reactions to events around her. The look of frustration plays like a permanent scowl that she cannot disavow by pretending to be what she is supposed to be.
April and Frank seem to have an ideal life. They’ve moved into a desirable and enviable home, they’ve gained prestige in the community by pushing out a couple of kids, and Frank is a respected employee for a business machine company. However, he’s routinely disappointed and professes on several occasions that he hates his job. April has an epiphany and decides that the family should move to Paris. It’s a wild idea that clearly is not going anywhere but for a brief period the couple seem to have found a bliss that heretofore has eluded them. Their faces no longer bear the strain of a torment; instead they seem to float by without a care in the world. Circumstances intervene though which trip up the dream leaving it gasping for air in the dirt at their feet.
This story plays out in real life all the time all over the world. There is a nagging feeling that things could be so much better if only this or that aspect of the life were altered dramatically. If only we could move into a better house. If only I could get more money or a better job entirely. If only the wife could get pregnant and bring into the world someone to distract us from the tyranny of our lives. This film suggests that none of these options do much to solve the essential dilemma. Acute unhappiness bordering on despair cannot in and of themselves bring about the desired change. They are often a good starting place but an entirely different world view is necessary if they are going to take root. New objects, new directions can bring about a transformation if the individual has prepared the way for a bright, new future that beckons with a tenacity that cannot be ignored. April and Frank have not prepared themselves for this new future. Their past is still sullied with shattered hopes and dismal personal disasters that are entirely internal in their actualization. Actual events, objects, are not oppressive. It’s the point of view that sees them this way and therefore the world is viewed as hopeless and empty.
Michael Shannon plays John, a former mathematician who has found himself incapable of handling the day to day existence taken for granted by most of the population. His scientific knowledge has been eradicated by electric shock therapy and he resides in a mental institution. He is the son of a realtor named Helen Givings (Bates) and her husband Howard (Easton). Helen asks the Wheelers if she can bring John over during one if his furloughs. They agree and John is paraded out and immediately demonstrates his lack of social awareness. Still, he says things that cause Frank to remark that John is the only person who clearly understands them.
Shannon gives one of those rare performances that is always close to being ripped apart by some spastic fit. He plays it with a fragility that is nevertheless controlled. It’s heartbreaking as one is instantly made sympathetic to a man whose livelihood has been cruelly taken away from him by circumstances beyond his control. John says “A lot of people are on to the emptiness but it takes real guts to see the hopelessness”. There is a real sense that despite his social gracelessness that John has acquired devastating insights into all matters of both the heart and the head. He’s like a savant of emotional truths and he manages to get quite a rise out of Frank who explodes in one of his frequent displays of acute frustration and demonstrable anger.
The marriage of April and Frank is as difficult to manage as a marriage can be. Both of them feel unmoored, merely flakes of dust floating in the wind. When Frank gets a job offer that promises him considerably more money, priorities shift as Frank sees an opportunity for a future that is actually desirable. He recognizes that working in computers could very well be something worth investing his time in. It’s the very thing that he requires to ensure that his work life manages to provide the stimulation and excitement that he’s been craving all along. Sure, it’s a desk job putting in even more hours but there’s a promise at the end of it which Frank clearly believes will offer him many more options. April doesn’t at first see it this way and remains disappointed that she can’t live out her dream as she’s determined it to be. Fights continue as their bond loosens and threatens to snap altogether. Still, there is a very real sense that nothing can fully destroy the love these people have for one another. It’s one of those thick and thin scenarios that plays against the backdrop of domestic euphoria.
Within the tidy framework the seeds of dissent are quietly sewn. Frank has an affair with one of his secretaries named Maureen Grube (Kazan). It doesn’t mean anything whatsoever so naturally he goes back for more. Maureen seems to be aware that she is being used but like all women in her position she chooses to ignore it. In one scene after a tryst she is sitting on the end of the bed smoking. There is a look of quiet resignation on her face as she contemplates what the experience means. Perhaps she’s thinking of the emptiness of the act, devoid as it is of any emotional involvement on his part. Perhaps she’s imagining a scenario where he leaves his wife and takes her in his arms back to his retreat for a repeat performance. Regardless, at the core of the experience is indeed her own emotional involvement in the act. Frank is callous and seems unable to face what he has done so he leaves. Later that night he goes home and is surprised by April and the kids as it is his birthday. The look of his face is one of both acute pain and fear. He knows he has done something untoward but he’s forced to remain as if nothing has happened. It’s a trick that he masters quite effectively. It isn’t until later he confesses to April who simply says, “Why did you tell me? Are you trying to make me jealous?”
In a sense this film can be seen as a guide to surviving the myriad ups and downs that afflict every marriage. It demonstrates both extremes and forces the two central characters to handle each of them while maintaining their dignity and sense of autonomy. In one scene Frank runs after April who has darted into the woods. When he reaches her she is incensed because she needs time to think, time to be alone with herself after a particularly cruel fight. The music as she enters the woods is the perfect mixture of evocative and downright creepy.
The performances in this film are all quite brilliant. Michael Shannon as mentioned clearly demonstrates why he is nominated for an Academy Award. There is an intensity here that comes through from the moment Shannon steps into the frame. His character’s maneuvering through strange territories and Shannon is able to convey John’s acute discomfort through body language and gestures. This is a character who is strained by social interaction and one truly feels this via the way Shannon chooses to sit down or walk about the room. It’s extraordinary to see an actor who is able to show such vulnerability just by moving his hands in a certain way. Kate Winslet gives another Oscar worthy performance as a woman who has reached the end of her tether. April wants so much to be truly happy but finds herself grounded as if her feet were nailed to the floor. There’s a sense that she hasn’t always welcomed the additions of the children but certainly seven years on after the first one she no longer feels apprehensive about them. Still, she does sometimes seem to wish she hadn’t burdened herself with them but these moments are fleeting and do not effect her overall state of being. Winslet as mentioned can destroy with a simple glance and the way her eyes work in this film is devastating.
Leonardo DiCaprio gives a powerhouse performance as a man whose filled with considerable rage about his job, his marriage, and his prospects of doing anything great with his life. He turns thirty and he feels as if he has turned into his father which he vowed he’d never do. Frank is a hard worker who legitimately believes that a man must be out there doing something vital in order to support his family. There’s an integrity to Frank that is only slightly damaged by his penchant for sleeping with the secretary. His longings are typical and subsequently torture him when they are not actualized. Kathryn Hahn plays a solid woman who represents one who has eased into the transition of the happy family life. She is someone who recognizes the difficulties but is more apt than April at facing them with a clear mind and an able heart. Hahn captures her character’s strength and ability to see through the storms without getting unduly accosted by their influence.
Overall, this film is an immaculately acted tone poem on the myriad confusions that afflict even the best intended when they are faced with what they perceive to be limited horizons and the often crushing brutality of the daily grind. The Wheelers have made what is considered by many to be an ideal life for themselves. They have a solid income, two gloriously content children, and a place for themselves in a community that takes in those who have accepted their lot in life without posing any uncomfortable queries that tend to disrupt the calm. Yet, as the film so elegantly demonstrates, this particular reality can be uniformly stifling to ambitions that ascend beyond its codified walls. The perfectly determined life, remaining on the surface something of an achievement, is no respite for those who cannot by into the delusion that such lives necessarily entail. The Wheelers find themselves at odds with the illusion because they still have ambitions for something much more vital. Their suffering emerges when they see before them nothing but slight variations on the same tired theme. At the end of the day, the limits of the proscribed life grinds on those who cannot maintain the charade of acceptance.
directed by Sam Mendes
written by Justin Haythe
based on the novel by Richard Yates
starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Michael Shannon, Kathy Bates, Richard Easton, David Harbour, Kathryn Hahn, Zoe Kazan, Dylan Baker, Jay O. Sanders
The human face is a mightily accurate barometer of emotion and intent. In this film director Sam Mendes focuses a considerable amount of attention on the visages of his lead actors leading to a succinct understanding of the characters’s various torments and disappointments. It maps out territory that is at times convoluted and exceedingly strange. Kate Winslet’s face tells many stories throughout this film. Her rage, frustration, fear, and even the occasional fit of what may pass for happiness are clearly written for everyone to see. Winslet is masterful here at conveying a considerable amount of information with a simple look. She does it unflinchingly as her character remains unaware of just how much she is revealing through her facial expressions.
Kate Winslet is April who is dissatisfied with the way things have developed in her life despite having done everything that society promotes as necessary to a vital, contributing life. When we first meet her she is an aspiring actress whose most recent play is universally loathed. She meets Frank Wheeler (DiCaprio) at a party and the pair are married. Frank convinces April that she’s just not that good at acting and she settles down to be a happy little housewife with her perfect kids, lovely and inviting home, and the latest in appliances. None of this helps her solve her quintessential dilemma which is to live a life that is freer, to see a future with more possibilities and less strain. It’s a breathtaking performance that comes together mostly through April’s reactions to events around her. The look of frustration plays like a permanent scowl that she cannot disavow by pretending to be what she is supposed to be.
April and Frank seem to have an ideal life. They’ve moved into a desirable and enviable home, they’ve gained prestige in the community by pushing out a couple of kids, and Frank is a respected employee for a business machine company. However, he’s routinely disappointed and professes on several occasions that he hates his job. April has an epiphany and decides that the family should move to Paris. It’s a wild idea that clearly is not going anywhere but for a brief period the couple seem to have found a bliss that heretofore has eluded them. Their faces no longer bear the strain of a torment; instead they seem to float by without a care in the world. Circumstances intervene though which trip up the dream leaving it gasping for air in the dirt at their feet.
This story plays out in real life all the time all over the world. There is a nagging feeling that things could be so much better if only this or that aspect of the life were altered dramatically. If only we could move into a better house. If only I could get more money or a better job entirely. If only the wife could get pregnant and bring into the world someone to distract us from the tyranny of our lives. This film suggests that none of these options do much to solve the essential dilemma. Acute unhappiness bordering on despair cannot in and of themselves bring about the desired change. They are often a good starting place but an entirely different world view is necessary if they are going to take root. New objects, new directions can bring about a transformation if the individual has prepared the way for a bright, new future that beckons with a tenacity that cannot be ignored. April and Frank have not prepared themselves for this new future. Their past is still sullied with shattered hopes and dismal personal disasters that are entirely internal in their actualization. Actual events, objects, are not oppressive. It’s the point of view that sees them this way and therefore the world is viewed as hopeless and empty.
Michael Shannon plays John, a former mathematician who has found himself incapable of handling the day to day existence taken for granted by most of the population. His scientific knowledge has been eradicated by electric shock therapy and he resides in a mental institution. He is the son of a realtor named Helen Givings (Bates) and her husband Howard (Easton). Helen asks the Wheelers if she can bring John over during one if his furloughs. They agree and John is paraded out and immediately demonstrates his lack of social awareness. Still, he says things that cause Frank to remark that John is the only person who clearly understands them.
Shannon gives one of those rare performances that is always close to being ripped apart by some spastic fit. He plays it with a fragility that is nevertheless controlled. It’s heartbreaking as one is instantly made sympathetic to a man whose livelihood has been cruelly taken away from him by circumstances beyond his control. John says “A lot of people are on to the emptiness but it takes real guts to see the hopelessness”. There is a real sense that despite his social gracelessness that John has acquired devastating insights into all matters of both the heart and the head. He’s like a savant of emotional truths and he manages to get quite a rise out of Frank who explodes in one of his frequent displays of acute frustration and demonstrable anger.
The marriage of April and Frank is as difficult to manage as a marriage can be. Both of them feel unmoored, merely flakes of dust floating in the wind. When Frank gets a job offer that promises him considerably more money, priorities shift as Frank sees an opportunity for a future that is actually desirable. He recognizes that working in computers could very well be something worth investing his time in. It’s the very thing that he requires to ensure that his work life manages to provide the stimulation and excitement that he’s been craving all along. Sure, it’s a desk job putting in even more hours but there’s a promise at the end of it which Frank clearly believes will offer him many more options. April doesn’t at first see it this way and remains disappointed that she can’t live out her dream as she’s determined it to be. Fights continue as their bond loosens and threatens to snap altogether. Still, there is a very real sense that nothing can fully destroy the love these people have for one another. It’s one of those thick and thin scenarios that plays against the backdrop of domestic euphoria.
Within the tidy framework the seeds of dissent are quietly sewn. Frank has an affair with one of his secretaries named Maureen Grube (Kazan). It doesn’t mean anything whatsoever so naturally he goes back for more. Maureen seems to be aware that she is being used but like all women in her position she chooses to ignore it. In one scene after a tryst she is sitting on the end of the bed smoking. There is a look of quiet resignation on her face as she contemplates what the experience means. Perhaps she’s thinking of the emptiness of the act, devoid as it is of any emotional involvement on his part. Perhaps she’s imagining a scenario where he leaves his wife and takes her in his arms back to his retreat for a repeat performance. Regardless, at the core of the experience is indeed her own emotional involvement in the act. Frank is callous and seems unable to face what he has done so he leaves. Later that night he goes home and is surprised by April and the kids as it is his birthday. The look of his face is one of both acute pain and fear. He knows he has done something untoward but he’s forced to remain as if nothing has happened. It’s a trick that he masters quite effectively. It isn’t until later he confesses to April who simply says, “Why did you tell me? Are you trying to make me jealous?”
In a sense this film can be seen as a guide to surviving the myriad ups and downs that afflict every marriage. It demonstrates both extremes and forces the two central characters to handle each of them while maintaining their dignity and sense of autonomy. In one scene Frank runs after April who has darted into the woods. When he reaches her she is incensed because she needs time to think, time to be alone with herself after a particularly cruel fight. The music as she enters the woods is the perfect mixture of evocative and downright creepy.
The performances in this film are all quite brilliant. Michael Shannon as mentioned clearly demonstrates why he is nominated for an Academy Award. There is an intensity here that comes through from the moment Shannon steps into the frame. His character’s maneuvering through strange territories and Shannon is able to convey John’s acute discomfort through body language and gestures. This is a character who is strained by social interaction and one truly feels this via the way Shannon chooses to sit down or walk about the room. It’s extraordinary to see an actor who is able to show such vulnerability just by moving his hands in a certain way. Kate Winslet gives another Oscar worthy performance as a woman who has reached the end of her tether. April wants so much to be truly happy but finds herself grounded as if her feet were nailed to the floor. There’s a sense that she hasn’t always welcomed the additions of the children but certainly seven years on after the first one she no longer feels apprehensive about them. Still, she does sometimes seem to wish she hadn’t burdened herself with them but these moments are fleeting and do not effect her overall state of being. Winslet as mentioned can destroy with a simple glance and the way her eyes work in this film is devastating.
Leonardo DiCaprio gives a powerhouse performance as a man whose filled with considerable rage about his job, his marriage, and his prospects of doing anything great with his life. He turns thirty and he feels as if he has turned into his father which he vowed he’d never do. Frank is a hard worker who legitimately believes that a man must be out there doing something vital in order to support his family. There’s an integrity to Frank that is only slightly damaged by his penchant for sleeping with the secretary. His longings are typical and subsequently torture him when they are not actualized. Kathryn Hahn plays a solid woman who represents one who has eased into the transition of the happy family life. She is someone who recognizes the difficulties but is more apt than April at facing them with a clear mind and an able heart. Hahn captures her character’s strength and ability to see through the storms without getting unduly accosted by their influence.
Overall, this film is an immaculately acted tone poem on the myriad confusions that afflict even the best intended when they are faced with what they perceive to be limited horizons and the often crushing brutality of the daily grind. The Wheelers have made what is considered by many to be an ideal life for themselves. They have a solid income, two gloriously content children, and a place for themselves in a community that takes in those who have accepted their lot in life without posing any uncomfortable queries that tend to disrupt the calm. Yet, as the film so elegantly demonstrates, this particular reality can be uniformly stifling to ambitions that ascend beyond its codified walls. The perfectly determined life, remaining on the surface something of an achievement, is no respite for those who cannot by into the delusion that such lives necessarily entail. The Wheelers find themselves at odds with the illusion because they still have ambitions for something much more vital. Their suffering emerges when they see before them nothing but slight variations on the same tired theme. At the end of the day, the limits of the proscribed life grinds on those who cannot maintain the charade of acceptance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)