First, I watched this one with the small guilt that I feel watching extraneous films during Oscar prep season. I have numerous films that I'm not going to get to. I will miss Amour. I also will probably miss Beasts of the Southern Wild and Life of Pi, but I have been looking forward to this one since before I heard of Lincoln. The truth of that statement is that I have been waiting with rapt anticipation for Martin McDonagh's next movie since the end of the first time I saw In Bruges. I am a fan of McDonagh from his plays, starting with my friends rendition of The Pillow Man to my reading of the Leenane trilogy on my own time. I absolutely treasure his morbid sense of humor and his tendency to portray peripheral characters who do terrifyingly violent things to other people. I treasure this as a call-back to Flannery O'Connor and the idea that our society can truly see itself most clearly in the monsters it creates. I've had long discussions with friends about this and I agree with some people's conception that the glimmer of hope and the possibility of grace and redemption entering these stories is lacking from the Southern gothic style of Flannery, but I believe in the power of looking well into the void and the power of that critique on the way we allow our world to work.
That said, Mairtin (as he often spells it, I believe to emphasize an Irish pronunciation) takes a step back from his normal tack in this film and does something reminiscent of what Charlie Kaufman achieved in Adaptation. The story is about a borderline alcoholic Irish screenwriter in Hollywood named Martin. Not quite what Charlie did, but he takes other steps into the surreal world of commenting on his own process.
Thus, for wit, I gave it a 9.5. This is .5 lower than Adaptation, but that one is nigh unapproachable. I also compared it to A Serious Man, which would have dropped it below 9.5, but it was as well written and acted as Rushmore, a statement that will get people on my case, I know, but it is true. McDonagh tears apart his obsession with psychopaths and his tears apart his categories and he gets Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken, and Woody Harrelson to help him.
The whole cast really gets involved and creates a magnificent story here. Colin Farrell does what he normally does, no offense, but nothing new. This is not an insult, because what he does can be gut-wrenching and captivating, but Irish drunk is his schtick. I love it. Sam Rockwell has also gotten used to being the crazy guy. But here it is clearly above and beyond, both on the crazy and on the sane end of it. Christopher Walken is at the top of his game, not completely out of character, but more reserved and even less violent. Woody Harrelson plays another over-the-top sort of character, very much in the vein of Tallahassee from Zombieland. Too many great actors to name, but none that struck me as jumping out of there comfort zones.
For wisdom, I'm a little conflicted. Mairtin's decision to deal with the seeming conflict between his feelings about violence and his ease with depicting it seems wise. That may not be how he would describe what he's doing, but it's hard to describe. It's hard to pin down these points without ruining it, but he clearly comes down on a side that is against the idea that violence solves problems, yet simultaneously against the idea that violence is never the answer. It is all about changing your life when you see a problem developing and sending the right sort of message. For this, I give it a 9.5. There's just a couple of small niggles in my brain about the nature of a psychopath and religious mumbo-jumbo. That will certainly come up when I review Life of Pi.
Lastly, I will give him a 9.5 for wonder on the basis of the use of voice-over and cutaways effectively, good music choice, and good work for a director without a lot under his belt. There seems less to say here, but it really is a "wonder"ful movie. That seems silly as soon as I type it, but I'm alright with it.
I can think of all sorts that I would not suggest this movie to. My grandma and all my dad's family. Cursing and violence absolutely abound and all the characters are pretty messed up, but there is something really good behind it all, I truly believe. Enjoyez!
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Argo* (2012) 8, 8.5, 9.5, 26
I can readily admit that I was not excited by Argo as a concept, when I first heard about it. It gave me pause to know that Ben Affleck directed it, as I am a very big fan of his feature-length directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone. I really felt for the lone samurai insisting on doing the right thing. Well-made, but most of all well-acted and well-written. This is to be attributed to Ben as well, both as director and as co-writer. This got me excited about it, but the look of the movie seemed ridiculous, but it occurred to me that this was historically. Silly period. This ended up being nearly my favorite part.
For wit, I gave the film an 8. Overall the writing did not deserve anymore. I compared it with American Gangster, which did not seem right, that one being slightly better acted, but definitely better written. It compared more to Artois the Goat or American History X. Though I haven't seen it, the comparison with Gangster Squad occurred to me. They both seem like great historical, true stories that need to be told, but they deserve something better than the way they are being portrayed. History demands nuance. Another problem with the incompatibility of the two major stories is important, but I'll come back to that when I deal with wonder.
As far as acting goes, kudos to Bryan Cranston for playing it solid, but simple on the first time I've seen him out of Breaking Bad. Kyle Jordan also practically reprises his role from Zero Dark Thirty with nearly the same effect. Not a lot, but certainly not bad. Alan Arkin and John Goodman were solid, if unspectacular. Lastly, positive points for each of the hiding Americans, just solid characters that will make me look again at a movie I see them in in the future. I should mention Ben, but what is there to say.
On to wisdom, which could definitely have been higher if there had been more cohesion. The beginning was something like an admission of responsibility by America in the reign of the Shah and the deposing of Mossadeq. This was refreshing to begin with, but it seemed to turn quickly. I would not have objected to a turn that made the point that the takeover of the embassy was a huge clustercuss, but the result was a complete abandonment of the original subplot. It was all, 100% American spy thriller. Fun, but confusing. The end became nearly identical to the end of Charlie Wilson's War, which, though it was fun and funny the first time, this time it seemed unnecessary. Overall I chose to give it an 8.5, not for bad morals, but confused presentation.
Wonder is a 9.5. I came to really like the period nature of it and appreciated the apparent attention to detail, not that I know what '79 looked like, really. I think Ben did alright, but it was kind of a let-down after Gone Baby Gone and The Town. Maybe he needs to get back to material that he wrote, or at least co-wrote, because I trust him as a writer, since Good Will Hunting. I hope the next one is better.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Les Miserables* (2012) 9, 9.5, 9.5, 28
This film, as a musical, makes it awkward to delineate the boundary between wit and wonder. Normally, the acting and the music work together but are demonstrably different elements. In this case, they are not. I will thus, try to analyze these in connection. Another issue is that this is a record of production of a musical with a long history (particularly a long personal history for me) and thus it almost feels silly going over how well written the songs feel, but I'll try to imagine you all meeting me from scratch, as I like to think is true for some of you.
The script/music for this musical is very well-done. The depth of a book like Les Miserables, a challengingly long and intricate novel, is played out here with a surprisingly large amount of detail, given the disparity in size between the two incarnations. The story in its original form is one of my very favorite stories, the passion (in the sense of the word used to describe the trial and execution of Jesus) of a man who endures some of the most despicable treatment possible for one person to put upon another without someone being killed and is yet transformed into the kind of force that changes the lives of everyone around him, not without failures and mistakes, but without a relapse into darkness. The little kindnesses we undertake, such as Monseigneur Bienvenu does for Jean Valjean, truly can have tremendous consequences. This ignores the deep and complex romance of Marius and Cosette, on the level with Romeo and Juliet, and the human tragedies of Fantine, Eponine, and Gavroche. The story is almost too big to consider in this forum, even in its abbreviated musical version. Needless to say I am a fan.
The music gives life and verve to this beautiful tale, creating one of the most stick-in-your-head feelings of any musical I've ever known, or any music for that matter. I'm actually listening to the 10th Anniversary Recording now. It cannot help but bring me a flood of memories. The film fails this tradition slightly in the way that far too often the actors, almost all of whom could actually sing quite well, undersung the dialogue. They seemed to find something synonymous between whispery singing and the display of emotion. That said, the acting rarely had anything lacking. Before I dive into that, I should mention that listening to some of the 10th Anniversary Recording, I decided that they definitely are guilty of oversinging and underacting. Who knows where the golden mean is? How we need you now, Aristotle.
Back to acting, Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway are eminently deserving of all the adulation they have received. Their respective soliloquies are the best part of the movie acting-wise. No shame should be placed on Eddie Redmayne and Amanda Seyfried either, though. They embody the two young lovers as well as anyone I can think of. Some comparison with the 1998 incarnation could be instructive.
Hugh vs. Liam Neeson leaves me preferring someone over Liam for the first time I can remember. Jackman is just more capable of making me feel both the destitute Valjean, fresh from prison, and the saintly Valjean at his death, are the same person, even if they are nearly unrecognizable. That should be put down in no small part to costume design and makeup. I'll come back to that. If I compare Anne to Uma Thurman, there is no comparison. Anne really owns this part like no one I've ever seen before. When I hear the musical, I hear her behind the other singer and she judges her harshly. When I read the novel, I now clearly see Anne. Except that "the Blonde" shouldn't have such dark hair. Russell Crowe does not, God forgive me, compare with Geoffrey Rush. Absolutely not. Too bad, I imagined such good things. Amanda vs. Claire Danes is hard. I've loved Claire for a long time and this is the first time since Mean Girls I've really liked Amanda. I'll give them a tie. With Claire, I felt the clear-cut sense of innocence more palpably. I cannot choose between one pair of doe eyes and another, but Claire's portrayal is just more nuanced. Claire and Hans Matheson clearly have a better chemistry than Amanda and Eddie, though. Eddie on his own is better than Hans. Eddie makes me believe the dichotomy between the revolutionary and the lover more fully, with no little help from the music. He doesn't seem shallow for being preoccupied with Cosette on the eve of the revolution, but he also doesn't seem like just a jerk for being miserable about his dead friends when he has Cosette forever.
This could be too academic for many, but I really enjoy the comparison. I do not know whether to place the aforementioned undersinging on the negative of wit or wisdom, so I take it 2.5 off each and incidentals place them each down at 9.5, but I cannot ignore it as much as I have. I would love to have the .25 measure in my methodology, but that's not going to happen now, so I absolutely must make wit a 9. I can't make it wonder, even though it seems like a failure of the director, but the costumes and makeup need recognition.
Wisdom comes last. I have few complaints. The bishop is underplayed and the chorus too often becomes cynical. The final number is absolutely wonderful. I also like the interpretation of what must have been envisioned as a simple musical finale as a glimpse at the afterlife, that is, the inclusion of all the dead in the scene and exclusion of the living and the lost dead, a.k.a. Javert. Add Valjean and Fantine's soliloquies and Fantine's calling of Valjean as he dies, and the mysterious, religious, libertarian, republican themes of the whole thing makes me quiver with the chill of hearing truth clearly and lovingly expressed. I will again point out the scene when the whores recruit Fantine as an example of the unfortunate ambiguity of the musical on these kind of social/moral issues that keeps me from giving it a straight 10.
I know that a large percentage of the good friends I've had the longest have long since seen this for the same reason it was so important to me, but if you haven't, even if you know nothing of Les Miserables, especially then, I suggest you do.
The script/music for this musical is very well-done. The depth of a book like Les Miserables, a challengingly long and intricate novel, is played out here with a surprisingly large amount of detail, given the disparity in size between the two incarnations. The story in its original form is one of my very favorite stories, the passion (in the sense of the word used to describe the trial and execution of Jesus) of a man who endures some of the most despicable treatment possible for one person to put upon another without someone being killed and is yet transformed into the kind of force that changes the lives of everyone around him, not without failures and mistakes, but without a relapse into darkness. The little kindnesses we undertake, such as Monseigneur Bienvenu does for Jean Valjean, truly can have tremendous consequences. This ignores the deep and complex romance of Marius and Cosette, on the level with Romeo and Juliet, and the human tragedies of Fantine, Eponine, and Gavroche. The story is almost too big to consider in this forum, even in its abbreviated musical version. Needless to say I am a fan.
The music gives life and verve to this beautiful tale, creating one of the most stick-in-your-head feelings of any musical I've ever known, or any music for that matter. I'm actually listening to the 10th Anniversary Recording now. It cannot help but bring me a flood of memories. The film fails this tradition slightly in the way that far too often the actors, almost all of whom could actually sing quite well, undersung the dialogue. They seemed to find something synonymous between whispery singing and the display of emotion. That said, the acting rarely had anything lacking. Before I dive into that, I should mention that listening to some of the 10th Anniversary Recording, I decided that they definitely are guilty of oversinging and underacting. Who knows where the golden mean is? How we need you now, Aristotle.
Back to acting, Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway are eminently deserving of all the adulation they have received. Their respective soliloquies are the best part of the movie acting-wise. No shame should be placed on Eddie Redmayne and Amanda Seyfried either, though. They embody the two young lovers as well as anyone I can think of. Some comparison with the 1998 incarnation could be instructive.
Hugh vs. Liam Neeson leaves me preferring someone over Liam for the first time I can remember. Jackman is just more capable of making me feel both the destitute Valjean, fresh from prison, and the saintly Valjean at his death, are the same person, even if they are nearly unrecognizable. That should be put down in no small part to costume design and makeup. I'll come back to that. If I compare Anne to Uma Thurman, there is no comparison. Anne really owns this part like no one I've ever seen before. When I hear the musical, I hear her behind the other singer and she judges her harshly. When I read the novel, I now clearly see Anne. Except that "the Blonde" shouldn't have such dark hair. Russell Crowe does not, God forgive me, compare with Geoffrey Rush. Absolutely not. Too bad, I imagined such good things. Amanda vs. Claire Danes is hard. I've loved Claire for a long time and this is the first time since Mean Girls I've really liked Amanda. I'll give them a tie. With Claire, I felt the clear-cut sense of innocence more palpably. I cannot choose between one pair of doe eyes and another, but Claire's portrayal is just more nuanced. Claire and Hans Matheson clearly have a better chemistry than Amanda and Eddie, though. Eddie on his own is better than Hans. Eddie makes me believe the dichotomy between the revolutionary and the lover more fully, with no little help from the music. He doesn't seem shallow for being preoccupied with Cosette on the eve of the revolution, but he also doesn't seem like just a jerk for being miserable about his dead friends when he has Cosette forever.
This could be too academic for many, but I really enjoy the comparison. I do not know whether to place the aforementioned undersinging on the negative of wit or wisdom, so I take it 2.5 off each and incidentals place them each down at 9.5, but I cannot ignore it as much as I have. I would love to have the .25 measure in my methodology, but that's not going to happen now, so I absolutely must make wit a 9. I can't make it wonder, even though it seems like a failure of the director, but the costumes and makeup need recognition.
Wisdom comes last. I have few complaints. The bishop is underplayed and the chorus too often becomes cynical. The final number is absolutely wonderful. I also like the interpretation of what must have been envisioned as a simple musical finale as a glimpse at the afterlife, that is, the inclusion of all the dead in the scene and exclusion of the living and the lost dead, a.k.a. Javert. Add Valjean and Fantine's soliloquies and Fantine's calling of Valjean as he dies, and the mysterious, religious, libertarian, republican themes of the whole thing makes me quiver with the chill of hearing truth clearly and lovingly expressed. I will again point out the scene when the whores recruit Fantine as an example of the unfortunate ambiguity of the musical on these kind of social/moral issues that keeps me from giving it a straight 10.
I know that a large percentage of the good friends I've had the longest have long since seen this for the same reason it was so important to me, but if you haven't, even if you know nothing of Les Miserables, especially then, I suggest you do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)