I wanted to have an Oscar preview event, but I've simply run out of time. I've only seen four best picture Oscar nominees so far; two were busts and two have ratings but no full reviews yet. I will barely have seen all the best picture nominees by showtime, if I'm lucky. My next planned event is to re-review my top 25 of all time so far and establish that as a living list to be kept up to date. I know you're excited. But before I get to reviewing Blue Jasmine, I'd like to begin with some mini-reviews of the two lesser films, Gravity and Captain Phillips.
I really loved Alfonso Cuaron's work with Children of Men, but even there his writing is weak in its ideas, diluting the wealth of ideas in the source material. In this film, that is highlighted. Gravity lacks any kind of viable character development or plot. Sandra Bullock's character is one of three and the deepest by far. But she is so obnoxious and shallow that I never wanted her to survive the deadly dangers all around her. The most readable ideas in the film are the power of the human spirit and the essential similarity of all religions and people, both of which are shallow ideas at best. But I will try to be fair and give credit where I think it's due.
First, Sandra gives her second good performance. She's definitely on a late-career upswing. Second, it is the most effective visual use of 3D I've ever seen. Its only the third movie I've seen in 3D, but someone finally recognized the limits of the medium. He keeps the scene in frame, reducing the appearance of a body cut off that I find so which unfailingly takes me out of the movie. But overall I do not suggest it, particularly if you can't see it in 3D. It simply wouldn't be worth it.
Both that and Captain Phillips disappointed me and help to continue my frustration with the Academy, who choose the two of these while snubbing the titular film of the post. Captain Phillips is far closer to Oscar caliber than Gravity but ultimately fails to live up to that standard. This has an interesting story, but unfortunately one that was all over the news. So much so that not even my news avoidance managed to save me from having this one ruined. The titular captain is kidnapped by Somali pirates and this story isn't lacking in dramatic flair, but the problems lay with inconsistency in the tone.
It does a good job of setting the stage for a relatable if ultimately villainous antagonist, but jettisons that emotional humanism immediately when the Navy SEALS show up. When the rescue begins in earnest, our becomes an action movie and we never return to the pirates as characters or the questions of conditions in Somalia, which cheapens the initial concern for them. Overall the film could be worth seeing, if only for the two less performances, which both are captivating at times. Barkhad Abdi is very deserving of the Oscar nod, though he doesn't measure up to Michael Fassbender in 12 Years a Slave. Tom Hanks also has Some great moments, particularly near the end.
Now let's move on to Blue Jasmine. I think this may be my favorite Woody Allen movie since Match Point. Let's begin with wit. I gave this one a 9.5, because it has a nearly perfect script and is fantastically well-acted. Let me begin by stating, without ruining anything, that the reveal at the end of the first scene sets the movie up perfectly without overly foreshadowing and is anyway one of the funniest I've seen in a long while. Like A Beautiful Mind, which I most recently reviewed, this one has a fantastic tempo never bogging down or passing by a great moment. Scenes build tension to a crescendo and then release, making an awful mess.
The film follows a society wife from Manhattan who's fallen from grace and onto hard times. Jasmine, portrayed by Cate Blanchett, moves in with her sister, Ginger, played by Sally Hawkins, who lives in San Francisco. The film travels back and forth between the present of Jasmine's life, trying to thrive in San Francisco, and the past when she lived in Manhattan, slowly revealing the whole story of how she arrived at this point. Overall, the two sides balance well, building tension by revealing just the right information at the right time.
The film is even quite funny, maybe the funniest Woody has achieved in recent memory. But it is often black comedy, occasionally so dark I didn't know if I should laugh. But not dirty.
As far as acting goes, Cate has probably done better, but not often. She achieves the absolute gamut of emotions, from deliriously happy to hysterically miserable, and also has scenes of remarkable detachment. She absolutely makes us feel the misery of being dragged down to a lower socio-economic and cultural level. Sally is almost as good as I've seen her, though mostly overshadowed by Cate. But in one late scene, she played one half of a phone conversation and it equals some of the best I've ever seen.
Alec Baldwin delights. Peter Sarsgaard is great. Louis C.K. is as good as I've ever seen him and funny as only he is. I shouldn't forget Alden Ehrenreich either, who stands out.
For wisdom, I gave a 9.75. That's really high, but the .25 off is just for Woody's characteristic lack of understanding of sex and life in general. But otherwise, it's nearly perfect. But to explain, I'll need to be more specific. So...
--------SPOILER ALERT-----------
The movie, to my mind, is structured somewhat like a tragedy. In this case, two foils, the two sisters, indulge in a monstrous self-justification by comparison. This defensive technique keeps them from seeing themselves in a realistic light.
I think that this fault is not uncommon. We all choose who we will compare ourselves to, often in order to make ourselves feel better. But pacing ourselves by another who is a loser or a cheat only allows us to be more comfortable ignoring our own faults, allowing us to settle for less.
I kept some fantastic lines almost as proof that Woody really seemed to be making a positive statement. The first is when Jasmine's friends says, "You have to make an effort. Otherwise nothing happens and you blame everyone but yourself." Her friend is very accurately seeing into her soul, but she only hears something to tell someone else, because she's already been better off than her sister. She has a complete lack of circumspection, because she has judged herself already in comparison and judged herself not to be the problem. She can see her sister's fault in settling for less in life, but not her own dependence on others and lack of scruple in obtaining her objectives. I won't say anymore, but the ending is really great. It brings this whole conflict to a head for everyone involved.
------SPOILER ALERT ENDED-------
For wonder, I've chosen a low 8.75 comparatively (that is, compared to the other numbers I've already given this film). The reason for this is mostly one of originality. That's an overrated concept these days, but it seems silly to judge this the way I judged Match Point almost ten years ago. In that case, Woody, the established comedian, did a new thing, proving he could be as adept at writing drama as he could at writing comedy. Now he directs a movie that is merely a better done version of the stereotype Woody Allen. The writing is better, but the whole movie still feels a little old hat. In a lot of ways this movie is really similar to Margot at the Wedding. He does a lot really well but very little feels a lot better. But let me run down, for those who don't know, the parts of wonder that Woody Allen has down.
I confirm that Woody makes all the music decisions himself, but I can't find anyone to give credit and someone deserves some. The placement and choice of music is intelligent and poignant. So much so that when my nephew, who get into a lot of heavy drama, saw a particular scene transition and the way the music played on it, he commented spontaneously. Practically a miracle. His use of motif to warn us about repeating patterns in this movie is subtle and brilliant.
One other flattering comment I can justly give him is that every film he makes immediately takes on the aura of canon for me by the second or third viewing. Everything seems preordained. He rarely makes a directorial decision I can imagine any other way.
But ultimately this all leaves him short of the 9 for wonder that I have films like Adventureland,Kisses, or Uncertainty.
So if you see this movie somewhere and wonder if you should see it, my note would be that this is the second best movie that I've seen that came out in the last year.
The last bit is just too tell you my ratings for12 Years a Slave and Her, with no explanation, but the promise of a review later. Here goes:
12 Years a Slave* (2013) 9.5, 10, 10, 29.5
Her* (2014) 9, 8.25, 10, 27.25
These are subject to change on second viewing, but they are my genuine and considered opinion. That's all I can muster for today. Good luck on your movie watching adventure!
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Blue Jasmine* (2014) 9.5, 9.75, 8.75, 28
Sunday, February 9, 2014
A Beautiful Mind** (2001) 9.75, 9.5, 9.75, 29
Before I dive into the titular film of this post, let me briefly comment on a lesser film that I stumbled across recently. Some 5 years ago, probably while I was an early undergrad, I used to watch all the trailers on iTunes, to keep abreast of what was coming out. I watched a trailer for an indie picture called The Blue Tooth Virgin. And I would always see it on my list, unobtrusive, especially because I no longer even remembered the trailer. I spent years trying, on occasion to understand the title. Only 24 hours after finally seeing it do I understand it has nothing to do with Bluetooth technology.
I do not suggest it. I can say its hanging just now between 3 and 4 stars, a moot point while my Netflix account remains closed. But it does bring up interesting questions about friends who read each other's work. This may have been the opposite of the film's point (I still don't really know), but I learned always to shoot straight, if only to avoid the complications of backtracking over your previous words.
Now let me move on my main feature, A Beautiful Mind. I chose this now because I remembered enjoying it, but didn't have a rating for it. This film is definitely one of the greats, finding itself in the rather elite category of Best Picture Oscar winners. I realize this accolade can, at times, be dubious, but in this case, it is undoubtedly deserved. I'm going to begin with wit. For wit, I gave it a 9.75. I know this means it's nearly perfect, but let me state my case. To begin, the script is nearly flawless. A Beautiful Mind's singular genius seems to come from its collaborative nature. The perfection of the script is due as much to Russell Crowe's improvisation and Ron Howard suggestion as to Akiva Goldsman's masterful screenwriting. A lot of my perspective on this film comes from a detailed viewing of the special features. A deleted scene that I believe should have made it reveals to me a single serious flaw, which goes more to wisdom than wit, that of focusing on the physical aspects of John and Alicia's relationship.
One of its best aspects is that the pacing maintains tension all the way through. For me, on this second viewing, a lot of the tension is released. I'm about to reveal the main conceit of the film so stop if you haven't seen it.-----------------------------SPOILER ALERT-------------------------------------------------
As a rewatcher, I obviously know that John Nash was schizophrenic and I even knew ahead of time which people that he sees were delusional, but I maintained my interest for two big reasons. The acting is spectacular and the descent into madness is particularly interesting to me. First, on the acting, I believe this is the best performance, so far, in the careers of Russell, Jennifer Connelly, and Ed Harris. This isn't an insult to any of them. All are fine performers, but this is there highest point to my mind.
Russell's portrayal of the descent into madness has a careful subtlety that astounds me. He begins with a sort of quirkiness, an idiosyncrasy that is all too familiar to me and follows it fast and hard to a highly conspicuous mental breakdown. This portrayal frightens me.
Jennifer's arc is similarly fascinating and as well played as anyone could havce done it. She begins with the sort of alluring/alarming direct stare that made me think of "glaukopis Athene." Her eyes are a gift from God, but her use of them is captivating. And she uses them as well to be frightening, terrified, and pitiable as she does to be charming.
Ed plays exasperated and domineering with charisma and chutzpah, but with just enough insanity to reveal hints of his delusional nature. Paul Bettany does something very similar with the wily and carefree roommate. The whole cast works together in beautiful concert.
Now let me turn to the question of wisdom so that I may gush about my own fear of mental illness. I am terribly afraid of slipping into complete and total insanity on a number of levels. I am afraid of my compulsions and the way they sometimes force me to read, watch and do things I later think I probably didn't need to do. I am afraid of my imagination and the likelihood that it could lead to some very involved delusions. I am afraid of my distance, practically and emotionally, from people that makes me feel like a sociopath and that I will spend too much of my life alone. I am afraid of my mind on nearly every level. I can't say this movie makes me feel better, but it does make me scared and yet not alone. Scared and not unique are two of the most productive states for me to be in. Scared is helpful, because I need nothing more than motivation on almost any day. Not unique is essential, because I have a tendency to make my problems and my world out to be one of a kind when I am assured by far wiser individuals that "there is nothing new under the sun."
For its portrayal of something important to me in an honest fashion, with insight, I immediately gave it a high score for wisdom, but one little choice made me bring it down to a 9.5. Ron admitted on the commentary to adding a line about taking newer medications near the end of the movie, despite the fact that John Nash never went on meds again. I am very unsure about the use of medication in the treatment of a wide variety of mental and emotional disorders, but whatever one thinks, it seems dishonest to use the story of a man who chose to live without medication and lived a more fulfilled life because of it as a springboard to promote the opposite approach to mental health. That seems dishonest. I don't mean to impugn the integrity of Ron or Brian Grazer, but this moment felt like a lapse in judgment to me.
Nonetheless, the movie dealt well with mental illness and focused heavily on the healing power of strong, non-emotionally based love to transform human lives. And that is to be applauded.
--------------------------------------------SPOILER ENDED---------------------------------------------
A couple other ideas worth commenting on are Nash's relentless pursuit of what he called his "original idea," which I would restate as the pursuit of greatness. Pursuit of recognition and reward drive a large portion of our society, but the drive that some have or choose to foster in themselves to do something new, something great and innovative is what moves us forward and what changes the world for the better.
One last note should be on Nash's own bargaining theory, with which I am only familiar through the film and for which he won the Nobel Prize in economics. This reevaluation of Adam Smith's theories on the value of competition is unique in my experience as one that draws on it and neither wholly accepts it nor rejects it, but builds something new from it (a rather Aristotelean or maybe Hegelian move). It builds a theory that accepts the self-interest principles but argues that self-interested cooperation is more effective. This idea has a lot to say to me in terms of a bridge between ethics and economics. Now on to wonder.
For wonder, I chose to give this film a very high 9.75. There are a myriad of reasons for this. First, the music is glorious, but much more importantly it is apt. Music is never a distraction from storytelling. This brings me back to Joyeux Noel and the way I praised its music for never pushing the performance, but all being organic. A Beautiful Mind does it completely different, allowing the music to lift simple moments to the height of grandeur. James Horner is a pretty fantastic composer, to my mind, but his decisions here are some of his best. His use of Charlotte Church, who sings beautifully in a way I'm not sure I've heard before, is genius. He chose to use her voice more like an instrument than the way that voices are normally used (I am paraphrasing him here and claim no detailed or impressive knowledge of music).
Second, I feel Ron outdid himself as the director. His use of the flashes of light to signify a breakthrough or making all delusional characters repeatedly appear aurally before being seen are beautiful little decisions that enhance the movie. He managed to use the color palette and tones in such a way to brilliantly create opposing forces attacking Nash's life and maintains that motif consistently and yet creatively. I mentioned before that I feel this film contains the best performances ever from more than one actor and I think that can't be a coincidence. Ron seems to have brought out the best in his cast, both individually and as an ensemble.
Lastly, I'd love to compliment the visual effects people, both in terms of makeup and the complex process of aging the actors minutely through the film and the little visual tweaks that make the film more seamless and perfect than would have otherwise been possible. The makeup department went from making Russell look younger than he was to multi-layered facial prosthetics that genuinely look and move like real skin. More than once I marveled at how young he was back then and at his oral prosthetic that gave him an overbite, never knowing what the behind-the-scenes work was doing. The effects department also gave us some beautiful shots that helped to explain Nash's major bargaining theory, mentioned above.
So, if you haven't seen this masterpiece or just never realized its outstanding worth, sit down with it soon. Or if you just want to sympathize with someone who's having a hard time, enjoy this film. Go in peace!
I do not suggest it. I can say its hanging just now between 3 and 4 stars, a moot point while my Netflix account remains closed. But it does bring up interesting questions about friends who read each other's work. This may have been the opposite of the film's point (I still don't really know), but I learned always to shoot straight, if only to avoid the complications of backtracking over your previous words.
Now let me move on my main feature, A Beautiful Mind. I chose this now because I remembered enjoying it, but didn't have a rating for it. This film is definitely one of the greats, finding itself in the rather elite category of Best Picture Oscar winners. I realize this accolade can, at times, be dubious, but in this case, it is undoubtedly deserved. I'm going to begin with wit. For wit, I gave it a 9.75. I know this means it's nearly perfect, but let me state my case. To begin, the script is nearly flawless. A Beautiful Mind's singular genius seems to come from its collaborative nature. The perfection of the script is due as much to Russell Crowe's improvisation and Ron Howard suggestion as to Akiva Goldsman's masterful screenwriting. A lot of my perspective on this film comes from a detailed viewing of the special features. A deleted scene that I believe should have made it reveals to me a single serious flaw, which goes more to wisdom than wit, that of focusing on the physical aspects of John and Alicia's relationship.
One of its best aspects is that the pacing maintains tension all the way through. For me, on this second viewing, a lot of the tension is released. I'm about to reveal the main conceit of the film so stop if you haven't seen it.-----------------------------SPOILER ALERT-------------------------------------------------
As a rewatcher, I obviously know that John Nash was schizophrenic and I even knew ahead of time which people that he sees were delusional, but I maintained my interest for two big reasons. The acting is spectacular and the descent into madness is particularly interesting to me. First, on the acting, I believe this is the best performance, so far, in the careers of Russell, Jennifer Connelly, and Ed Harris. This isn't an insult to any of them. All are fine performers, but this is there highest point to my mind.
Russell's portrayal of the descent into madness has a careful subtlety that astounds me. He begins with a sort of quirkiness, an idiosyncrasy that is all too familiar to me and follows it fast and hard to a highly conspicuous mental breakdown. This portrayal frightens me.
Jennifer's arc is similarly fascinating and as well played as anyone could havce done it. She begins with the sort of alluring/alarming direct stare that made me think of "glaukopis Athene." Her eyes are a gift from God, but her use of them is captivating. And she uses them as well to be frightening, terrified, and pitiable as she does to be charming.
Ed plays exasperated and domineering with charisma and chutzpah, but with just enough insanity to reveal hints of his delusional nature. Paul Bettany does something very similar with the wily and carefree roommate. The whole cast works together in beautiful concert.
Now let me turn to the question of wisdom so that I may gush about my own fear of mental illness. I am terribly afraid of slipping into complete and total insanity on a number of levels. I am afraid of my compulsions and the way they sometimes force me to read, watch and do things I later think I probably didn't need to do. I am afraid of my imagination and the likelihood that it could lead to some very involved delusions. I am afraid of my distance, practically and emotionally, from people that makes me feel like a sociopath and that I will spend too much of my life alone. I am afraid of my mind on nearly every level. I can't say this movie makes me feel better, but it does make me scared and yet not alone. Scared and not unique are two of the most productive states for me to be in. Scared is helpful, because I need nothing more than motivation on almost any day. Not unique is essential, because I have a tendency to make my problems and my world out to be one of a kind when I am assured by far wiser individuals that "there is nothing new under the sun."
For its portrayal of something important to me in an honest fashion, with insight, I immediately gave it a high score for wisdom, but one little choice made me bring it down to a 9.5. Ron admitted on the commentary to adding a line about taking newer medications near the end of the movie, despite the fact that John Nash never went on meds again. I am very unsure about the use of medication in the treatment of a wide variety of mental and emotional disorders, but whatever one thinks, it seems dishonest to use the story of a man who chose to live without medication and lived a more fulfilled life because of it as a springboard to promote the opposite approach to mental health. That seems dishonest. I don't mean to impugn the integrity of Ron or Brian Grazer, but this moment felt like a lapse in judgment to me.
Nonetheless, the movie dealt well with mental illness and focused heavily on the healing power of strong, non-emotionally based love to transform human lives. And that is to be applauded.
--------------------------------------------SPOILER ENDED---------------------------------------------
A couple other ideas worth commenting on are Nash's relentless pursuit of what he called his "original idea," which I would restate as the pursuit of greatness. Pursuit of recognition and reward drive a large portion of our society, but the drive that some have or choose to foster in themselves to do something new, something great and innovative is what moves us forward and what changes the world for the better.
One last note should be on Nash's own bargaining theory, with which I am only familiar through the film and for which he won the Nobel Prize in economics. This reevaluation of Adam Smith's theories on the value of competition is unique in my experience as one that draws on it and neither wholly accepts it nor rejects it, but builds something new from it (a rather Aristotelean or maybe Hegelian move). It builds a theory that accepts the self-interest principles but argues that self-interested cooperation is more effective. This idea has a lot to say to me in terms of a bridge between ethics and economics. Now on to wonder.
For wonder, I chose to give this film a very high 9.75. There are a myriad of reasons for this. First, the music is glorious, but much more importantly it is apt. Music is never a distraction from storytelling. This brings me back to Joyeux Noel and the way I praised its music for never pushing the performance, but all being organic. A Beautiful Mind does it completely different, allowing the music to lift simple moments to the height of grandeur. James Horner is a pretty fantastic composer, to my mind, but his decisions here are some of his best. His use of Charlotte Church, who sings beautifully in a way I'm not sure I've heard before, is genius. He chose to use her voice more like an instrument than the way that voices are normally used (I am paraphrasing him here and claim no detailed or impressive knowledge of music).
Second, I feel Ron outdid himself as the director. His use of the flashes of light to signify a breakthrough or making all delusional characters repeatedly appear aurally before being seen are beautiful little decisions that enhance the movie. He managed to use the color palette and tones in such a way to brilliantly create opposing forces attacking Nash's life and maintains that motif consistently and yet creatively. I mentioned before that I feel this film contains the best performances ever from more than one actor and I think that can't be a coincidence. Ron seems to have brought out the best in his cast, both individually and as an ensemble.
Lastly, I'd love to compliment the visual effects people, both in terms of makeup and the complex process of aging the actors minutely through the film and the little visual tweaks that make the film more seamless and perfect than would have otherwise been possible. The makeup department went from making Russell look younger than he was to multi-layered facial prosthetics that genuinely look and move like real skin. More than once I marveled at how young he was back then and at his oral prosthetic that gave him an overbite, never knowing what the behind-the-scenes work was doing. The effects department also gave us some beautiful shots that helped to explain Nash's major bargaining theory, mentioned above.
So, if you haven't seen this masterpiece or just never realized its outstanding worth, sit down with it soon. Or if you just want to sympathize with someone who's having a hard time, enjoy this film. Go in peace!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)