Fury* (2014) 9.75, 9, 9.5, 28.25

          So, I had an unplanned day off and managed to find myself close by the theater with time to kill. Fate handed me Fury. This film is one I fully expect to get Oscar considerations, etc. and I will be disappointed if it doesn't. One quick point before I dive into the question of wit. This film was 2'14" and managed to feel like an hour and a half, tops. It had a flow that I'd place up against most movies of its kind.
          To wit. One thing that occurs to me now is the extraordinary discretion of this film. Often, in order to avoid being graphic, a film has to water down or at least temper the harshness of its message. On the opposite end, a film like 12 Years a Slave, which I'm certainly not criticizing, in order to achieve a full and honest portrayal of the times and circumstances gives us a jagged realism that occasionally requires very graphic imagery. This film has some really haunting moments of violence, sexual and otherwise, but it includes zero instances of nudity. It isn't without violence. A lot of people die, but the violence never felt gratuitous to me. This was a late add, but I gave it an extra .25 for wit, though it might as well have been split between the three categories because it required deftness in each.
          Beyond this, in wit, I find it hard to differentiate between the writing and acting, but the core group and even some of the outliers in this film are outstanding, as characters. Again, it could be down to the actors, to the director, or the writers. The core of this film is split between Brad Pitt and Logan Lerman. These two are really good. Brad's Wardaddy, who's often also referred to as Don, is quiet, but he's a leader. He's also at times the most frustratingly complacent character. He wants a better world, but so callously accepts the bad, at times even spurring it on.
          Logan's Norman aka Machine is our little everyman, certain that he doesn't belong at the front. But we're never given any real backstory on this or any character. This might be the most important part of what makes this movie a great war movie. We never see a flashback or any setup. We only see men behaving as they do in the theater of war, pure and raw. One of the great elements of this kind of dirty, grimy war story is that it acts as a heightener. We see men whose virtues and vices have been called into play. A coward will be shown as he really is and so will a bully. A brave man and a scoundrel. And sometimes these come from the same person.
          I know this sounds weird. I know I never believed I would say this. But Shia LaBeouf is finally believable as an adult in a movie. Beyond that. This is the first time I've ever seen him command a scene and put together a consistent and enriching performance. He may be the best part of the movie. His character, as far as I know only ever referred to as Bible, is an embodiment of everything I love and hate about evangelical, particularly revival-driven, Protestant fundamentalism. He is sincere, forthright, and earnestly righteous. He is also overbearing, judgmental, and at times callous. He is beautiful and human from first to last.
          One more highlight is Jon Bernthal, who I'd hitherto only known from The Walking Dead, playing Coon-Ass. He is the most frightening 'good-guy' in this film, but even he has his moments, little glimpses that remind me that even the bully and the rake are human, for all their faults they have the fire of God inside. He is powerful and frightening in a way that plays like a lesser Joker, but maybe even more so because of those glimpses of light. And in many ways he's a hero, if only because anyone half-decent looks like one when they're fighting the Nazis.
          Michael Pena would have deserved some serious praise but he never really gets a scene to himself. Jim Parrack, Laurence Spellman, and Brad William Henke have their moments along with Jason Isaacs, who more or less has a cameo, but a memorable one. Alicia von Rittberg also deserves a word. Her subtle playing with Logan and her background reactions to Jon are very important to selling the whole thing.
          All of this feels like it places me near a perfect score, but I did have one serious grievance that brought it down to 9.75. But in order to do it any justice I have to get into some stuff.



=============================SPOILER ALERT==============================
          The ending is a little bit cliched. The everyman as the only survivor is a holdover from that obscure time in storytelling when we felt we had to justify how the story got to us. It is unnecessary and cheapens the very real feeling of the movie. I don't mind the sole survivor, but there's nothing gained from and there is a great deal of probability against the youngest and least experienced soldier around surviving a situation that kills everyone else in the whole tank division. And the flashlight under the tank. Silly.
========================================================================


          On to wisdom. This one isn't as drawn out or groundbreaking. There is the customary -.25 for some silly comments about sex and being young. It's nonsense, but it's so common some take it for sense.
          On the plus side, we have the idea that there were bad Americans and good Germans. Groundbreaking at one time, but pretty commonplace now. We even have the idea that one person, in an extreme situation can be both the good guy and the bad guy in different moments. That's a little deeper. Add to that some flattery about the 'good bits' in Scripture and I round it back up .25. That leaves us just where we were at with a 9.
          For wonder, as with most well-made films, I don't have a whole lot negative to say. The positives come from three camps. The director's credit, which is mostly having accomplished the seemingly impossible in coaxing real acting from Shia LaBeouf is worth a little bit.
          Beyond that, the two more technical achievements are a solid score that builds the film without taking it over and one strange choice I assume was made in post about gun/cannon fire. A brief perusal of the internet revealed to me that this is a real thing used at the time. One of the bullets in a round was called a tracer and it helped the shooter to see where they were shooting. These were also on the cannon shot, to aid the gunners in tank battles, which is one of the highlights of the film, action-wise. I may be rounding down a bit, but this brings my total here to 9.5.
          This is just my fifth 28.25, which puts it in around the likes of Elf, What Maisie Knew, The Life Aquatic, and How to Marry a Millionaire. I believe it also now puts it above two of the three other war movies I've rated so far. This may be high, my first watch ratings always seem to be, but the others might be low, which I often believe to be true of some of my older ratings. We may never know.
          If you do decide to watch this film, I hope you enjoy it, not least on my recommendation. Be careful there are intimations, though nothing explicit of unwholesome sexual relations, including sly references to rape. And a lot of dead people and some disturbing war deaths, but those might be obvious. Enjoyez!

Interstellar* (2014) 9.25, 9.75, 9.75, 28.75

I HAVE RETURNED.

It’s been a while folks. I’ll call it sabbatical. I have returned because my good friend suggested that Interstellar deserved a review if anything did. I agreed. So here we go:
I'd like to begin by sharing a bit from a friend. When it first finished, he said to me that he hadn't thought, after Inception, that Christopher Nolan could get more "outrageous." I think that is absolutely the right word for it. He did something That seamlessly revolutionized the way movies will be done from here on out. And next year, every movie will be trying to copy it, but they will all look pale beside it. I think that's a good place to start.

I’ll begin from the back, because that was key. Wonder is a 9.75. I’ll begin by giving the positives, which are numerous. The music from Hans Zimmer is magnificent as always. I’ll come back to questions of music when I get to negatives, but my limited musical knowledge can say this: Hans Zimmer seems to be able to use music to lead us inexorably to his emotional waypoints and to time it second-perfect with the visuals.

Beyond music, the visuals are perfect. In space, they are glorious, on other planets, they are harrowing, in fifth-dimensional space, they are unique and mythic, but the most masterful stuff may be the way they create the future earth and set the characters in relation to these backdrops.

The negatives are all in the area I would call sound-mixing, possibly for lack of a better term. There are two possibilities here. One is that Nolan has again created a work of genius that mixes the audio from two scenes at a deafening volume and finds a way to make the dialogue still mostly intelligible. That has never been done in this way before, to my knowledge, but my hunch is that the latter is true. In the attempt to create something new and exciting, I think, Nolan has stepped over an invisible line from genius to quackery. It is a subtle thing at times and not every scene like this (there seems to have been a number) fails, but it is often enough a distraction that disables a full view of the film that I wish he hadn’t done it. For that he loses his perfect wonder score in my eyes.

Now to wisdom. Like with wonder, the score is very high because Nolan knows what he’s doing. He knows just how to spin good ideas into narrative. His first major idea, which I did not expect and I hope doesn’t spoil anyone’s enjoyment of the movie, is that of the pursuit of excellence. In his characters voices it sounds more like, “Don’t allow yourself to be bound to what is seen as necessary, but aim for the stars in terms of doing what excites you.” This lesson is, I think, a very important one for a world dominated by the rush to promote sciences and things that are seen as practical over the arts and philosophy, which are often seen as inconsequential in comparison. Nolan’s character’s are scientists, but their interests are seen as extraneous in a world that needs food, but they see the necessity of looking beyond the immediate to the important issues that define humanity. This completely worth +.25 or more to me.

The second idea is possibly even more important and makes up most of the remaining .5 addition. I’m about to head into territory that could be a spoiler.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I’ll go ahead and go all out since the spoiler concerned have been shooed away. I think the consistent eschewing of the evil-robot motif for the evil-human version is genius. Characters like Mann, played by Matt Damon, and Michael Caine’s character, who both spin deep falsehoods that condemn others to fates they would never have chosen, are near-perfect exemplars of the power and idiocy of human hypocrisy. They both see themselves as superior for having taken it upon themselves to act for the survival of the human race, but they fail to see the blinding selfishness in their own decisions as well as their short-sightedness.

While I’m at it, I could trace the further development of that first idea in Caine’s lie to Murph and the way she fights through the assumption that it’s hopeless. Throughout the movie, the fight between idealism and practicality finds the idealist the success and the practical man the fool. I think this reversal of how our society often thinks of things is insightful and at times produces great moments of comedy.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The rest of the +.75 on top of the 9 is made up by Anne Hathaway’s somewhat corny scene where she tries to convince us that love is quantifiable. It’s corny, but paradoxically somewhat accurate.

On to wit, at last. This was strangely the hardest category for this film. In the past, Nolan has at times struggled here. He gets great actors to work with him and they never really underperform with him, but there are just little structural problems. Here the issues are with pacing and dialogue. As far as pacing goes, he does some brilliant work, with the space shuttle launch, etc., but the development of these long relationship plots falters at times. It skips things sometimes, mostly because this could easily been a mini-series and has a lot to get through in the time allotted. But McConaughey and his daughter, as well as said daughter (hereafter Murph) and her brother’s relationship. So many little relationships develop, but none of them seem very deep in the end. I won’t head into spoiler territory again, but the final scene with McConaughey and Murph is really disappointing and trivializing of interpersonal relationships, reminding me damningly of the break-up scene in Her.

For this reason, some of the dialogue feels really forced or unnecessarily terse. And some jumps are made (e.g. “You’re my ghost”) that are somewhat hard to feel good about.

At this point I feel like we land at an even 9. The extra .25 is about acting, but with this kind of all-star cast, it should be more. Everyone is good. Michael Caine, Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, various other surprise guests, but no one is outstanding. That is really a darn shame. The best performances are McConaughey and the guest who goes to play Dr. Mann.

I think that finds us where we end. A 28.75 is no mean feat, especially for a movie with really visible flaws. It puts it directly in the top 25, which I really will rewatch and rerate and review for you, someday. Be well and watch good movies.

P.S. If you’ve not already watched Shooter (2007) and you’re wondering if you should, I don’t recommend it. It might have been a four star, but Interstellar has not left me in the mood to finish inferior films.

Beginners** (2010) 9.75, 8.75, 9.5, 28

          Hello, and welcome back. I've been away a while. I have seen a lot of things, most of which should get some reference in an upcoming interlude. But let's be to it.

          I've very intentionally reworked my rating process yet again and have decided to begin each rating with a 9, which is the medium rating for anything I've already given 5 stars to. Then I will subtract for anything which seems to me a clear flaw, then add for outstanding elements. Previously, especially recently, I've been overrating by assuming a 10 and simply peeling away for perceived flaws. It's important to remember that art can be flawless and yet unremarkable.
          So, I gave it a 9.75 for wit. I think this movie truly has a beautiful, and what may be more to me, quirky way of shining light on a variety of human experience. I'll break it down.

          As far as acting there is nothing bad to say and a number of possibly great performances here. Ewan McGregor does what I believe to be his best work, though I admit I've not seen a good portion of his work. Ewan simply inhabited this character and find something truly beautiful. From his genuine disappointment at being find out to be sad at a party, which I can certainly relate to, to his loud weeping and sobbing at his father's death, he moves and amazes.

          The second standout is Mélanie Laurent. This is only the third film I've seen her in (previously Paris and Inglourious Basterds), but I already feel confident she will be among the best of her generation. Her success in manufacturing intimacy, the genuine sense that we are piercing the veil and seeing her soul, makes her performance really special. Some credit has to be given here to the onscreen chemistry of Mélanie and Ewan. They read each other so well and react with the simple deftness that makes one believe they could really be in love. These two together warrant a +.25 for wit.
          The last major player is Christopher Plummer. He's had a storied career that would be notable without small films like this, but his work here is virtuoso. He manages minute close-ups and big wideshots, rarely failing to dominate his time onscreen. His subtlety in expressing overwhelming joy and burdensome sadness, sometimes in the same moment is breathtaking. Overall his performance warrants a second +.25, leaving us at 9.5.

          Lastly, I should give some praise to Goran Visnjic, who successfully makes the much younger gay lover of Christopher's character likable and occasionally pitiable without compromising his obnoxious need for validation and his insensitivity to the world around him.
          As for the writing, which is no doubt the source of some of the acting here, the film is incredibly funny and also profound in its use of non-realist storytelling to tell a wholly realistic emotional story about death, love, and family. The most notable elements here are the insertion of monologic sections from Oliver's (Ewan) perspective to clarify the ideas and set the tone for major shifts in the film. They could be preachy and out of place, but I think they are well-conceived and set in the voice of the character and grounded in details of the story and thus achieve the status of  worthwhile additions.
          The last note on wit should be the inclusion of Arthur's character, the dog, who would have been a fun bit if he were simply a vessel for Ewan to speak into, but the choice of having him respond in subtitles, whether intended as a sort of magical realism or a manifestation of Oliver's own habit of talking to himself, is inspired and sets the movie apart in a way that really makes it shine differently.
          Beyond these specific instances, the films incidents are fun, original, and yet classic-feeling moments that drive the movie with an plot intensity lacking in most "romantic comedies." Overall for writing I added another +.25 for our total of 9.75.
          Now I'll move, however reluctantly to wisdom. I'll begin simply with the ideascape surrounding Christopher's character (Hal) coming out at the age of 75. Overall I took .5 away from the film for its general depiction of sex, bringing it down to 8.5. Hal engages in an "open" and "free" manner of sexuality after his wife dies and, though the film suggests the problems caused by this "uncomplicated" way of treating sex, I think the overall tone of the film is supposed to suggest that there is nothing wrong with this way of doing things. This might also be a slight failure in wit, because though I get the impression from the director in the commentary and some of the characters voices that there is no problem with Hal's late in life promiscuous jaunt, the most basic story logic shows a lot of people being hurt by it. We see Goran's character (Andy) hurt by the way he is kept out of the inner circle by the shallowness of their relationship, but mostly we see Hal harmed again and again by his need to indulge the carefree attitude of his fellow gays, both partners and friends, and trying to keep these relationships carefree and light when you're dying of cancer requires a great deal of dishonesty, which bad in itself for relationships, also creates a real sense of isolation for those in the know.
          I will also point out as briefly as I can that I have serious reservations and doubts that homosexual activity is a real positive for the mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical health of any human being. I don't think it is the way we were intended to function. That is all I will say to avoid the discursion which could go far too long for a movie review.
          The other negative I'd like to point out is a certain romanticization of lawlessness for which I assessed a -.25, bringing it down to 8.25. A lot of romances tend to include moments in which vandalism, petty theft, and various other activities with real consequences afford a lot of enjoyment. This isn't untrue, but merely lacks circumspection to remember that all of our petty lawlessness ends with work and loss for others, that being the reason it's probably against the law in the first place.

          Now, I also found great positives to counter this to an extent. The first is the idea expressed in this formula: Love+Sadness=Love & Sadness. This movie affirms for me the essential principle that love is beyond an emotion and thus beyond the sloshing around of our other emotions. Love, as a thing we choose to do, can coexist, without confusion or loss with things like sadness and fear and desire. Affection, desire, or what is colloquially called "being in love" rarely survive prolonged periods of sadness or competing desires. Oliver says at one point "I don't think this is what I'm supposed to feel like," trying to make sense of pain and depression coexisting with love. Poignantly, when he asks her if she's happy, she says, "Maybe I'm not perfect at it. I don't really know what I'm doing. But I wanna be here." The recognition that it requires work to love and be happy against the entitlement of our sappy and childish world is refreshing. Happily ever after must be earned. His moment of realization coincides with another great line, this time in the mouth of Arthur, "We knew it wouldn't work even before we met her." Seeing through and overcoming that moment is really what makes this movie shine. This insight into love and romance is worth .25.
          The second thread of the film is handled with similar precision and the lesson of the child parent relationship can be distilled in one quote. Oliver imagines that a photo of a hand holding out daisies is that of his mother. He says, in her stead, "Here. Here is simple and happy. That's what I meant to give you." It speaks to the ache of parents (as I imagine it, and as, being an uncle, I somewhat know it) in hoping that whatever we give to our children, it distills down to something that makes them happy and eschews the complications of misplaced guilt or unproductive neuroses. This, as well, is worth a solid +.25, bringing the total back to 8.75.

          For wonder, I'll return to some of the things that came up under writing and wit, but hopefully from a different angle. The previously mentioned monologues contain many elements both of line drawing and use of stock photos to make interesting and salient points. These sections ended up being some of the most memorable of the film and really showcase the artistic talent of Mike Mills, the writer/director, as well as his ability to meld that into the film in a way that maintains the illusion of wholeness.
          The dog's integration into the film is another source of wonder in this film for me. The dog feels like an actor in the film and never appears out of character. This seems like a momentous achievement, because I can't remember it being achieved with this level of believability before. These elements warranted a +.25.
          The last .25 that I gave this film for wonder is split between the work of musicians and cinematographers. The music chosen and composed for this movie is astounding. The jazz tunes from Jelly Roll Morton paired with the slightly more classical original compositions accentuate and build on the simple performances of the cast to give the movie great flow and attitude.
          Add to this the camera work, particularly the courage to use wideshots and low light in situations where it was appropriate. Some of the best moments are in a wideshot in a darkened conference room with Mélanie and Ewan discussing their future as tiny silhouettes. There are numerous scenes which take advantage of the use of distance, such as when Oliver is informed of his father's death and then weeps over his body, and others which effectively use low light, like the end of the conference room scene in which the two characters horseplay in silhouette. I very nearly added a second .25 for this, but I feel this 28 is more earned than some 29's I've given, so I'll let it stand.
           I cannot recommend this film enough. I sincerely hope you enjoy it a fraction as much as I did. Join me soon for a full interlude to discuss my recent sub-reviewable film watching and some discussion of TV as well.

Forget Paris** (1995) 9.5, 9.75, 9.25, 28.5

          This movie is one of my old favorite movies, but I've never bothered to rate it before. It is one of the few movies I've ever watched all the way through back to back. It is truly hilarious. But let me see if I can convince you to pick it up. I'll begin with wit.
          I gave the movie overall a 9.5. On this count, it is near flawless. It is packed from beginning to end with jokes. Great little stories and impeccable one-liners. The only negatives come from this exact thing. Occasionally there is just noticeably one too many jokes in a scene and it creates something awkward and slows the natural progression of the movie. This is always the danger of stories that are punched up again and again, but I think this film more often errs on the side of witty than over-stuffed. I took off about a third of a point for that and the rest of the lost .5 is from occasionally awkward moments of acting from otherwise impressive performances by Billy Crystal and Debra Winger.
          Comedically, this one works for me in large part due to the fact that its comedy continues to build on itself. Most jokes either call back to a previous moments or are called back later. I can't say many of the one-liners stand out on their own. There is something about joke placement, especially in the mouth of a character that makes it work.

          The performances, as I mentioned, are the key to the film. Billy and Debra fill a good part of the film and have the highest moments of comedy and drama, both of which they perform admirably, surprisingly better at the drama than the comedy. Only the comedic lines ever ring false. But the whole film is their love story as told by their best friends to the new female addition to the group. She's played by Cynthia Stevenson, whose character is engaged to Joe Mantegna's. Around them form a whole group of close friends being waited on unforgettably by Robert Costanzo. Robert and Cynthia are the real standouts. She has some of the most memorable moments in the film and her character has an extremely visceral reaction, from profuse weeping to psychotic shouting, to the story of Mickey and Ellen, Billy and Debra's characters. Robert plays a witty, dry, and pushy waiter who makes me feel at home and yet is somehow exotic.
          Wisdom is probably the highlight of the movie. What this film has to teach is not uniquely, but classic and rarely presented so well. The -.25 is for a general lack of understanding of sex, that which is "common to men." A brief perusal of our world's sexual ethics leaves me feeling overwhelmingly dirty, not least because of the aspects of it which have subconsciously become a part of me, but I feel is acceptable to set that aside with a nominal knockoff because it is so common and because the extent to which this film is even off is minute. I cannot believe that fornication on a whim has no consequences that would better be avoided, but the film contains just one instance, that then leads to a long and more or less healthy relationship. I know that pornography and auto-eroticism is dangerous to the health of one's sexual understanding, but the film doesn't harp on it. It simply acknowledges that these characters, like all too many people in the world are affected by them. So that aside, let's judge their judgment.
          This film has a great deal of insight about interpersonal relationship, not extraordinary, but of the type that we all, I think, need to hear from time to time(de temps en temps). This reaches far beyond duprasses (an alternate code-word for romantic/sexual relationships, mostly better because it has less baggage). I'd like to relate some examples. There's a scene, early in the film, when the two future lovers meet. Mickey(Billy) begins to rant at Ellen(Debra), who is a customer service rep at an airline. Here it is:
          Ellen: How are you feeling today?
          Mickey: How am I today? I am a mass of good will.
          E: On behalf of the airline, l apologize for any problem--
          M: Problem? There's no problem. You lost my father. My rear end's molded to a plastic chair and I’ve got gas from eating those almonds. I’m so happy I’m a walking Mardi Gras.
          E: That's funny. You have a delightfully sharp way of expressing yourself. A terrible thing has been done to you and we really are sorry. You've every right to insult, belittle and abuse the staff who have tried to help you. In fact, we thank you. And we voted you Traveler of the Month, so congratulations."
          This scene is both funny and expresses the simple, but ultimately hard-to-hold-onto notion that, because all the annoying failures and exasperating mistakes that can make our lives miserable are inevitably caused by human error, the same kind that we occasionally make and hate when other point them out and apologize profusely for, our current level of frustration is often understandable but rarely justified.
         Another great moment, though admittedly not ingeniously portrayed is when Mickey gets the sudden urge to go to a museum when he's on the road reffing games, because that's what he and Ellen did. The lesson we can see is that great people stretch you. The best kind of friends, lovers, and even family are the ones who force you to confront your assumptions about what is worthwhile. A guy whose only ever listened to genres of music descended from punk rock is done a great service by falling in love with a girl who listens to classical and a man who only eats meat and potatoes is blessed in meeting an intelligent, interesting vegan, because it drives him out of his comfortable place and into a moment of discovery. When we face new things, we can find out how limited the life we've lived is. Of course, the movie shows us our tendency, if we're not careful, to fall back to old patterns and lose all our progress.
         But this film gives a more complete picture of what it means to love someone, including but not limited to the pettiness of lovers. One of the best scenes for this is when Mickey and Ellen are out with friends on a double date and begin arguing about whether or not the car would fit into a parking space. Mickey calls back to his disapproval of The Phantom of the Opera, having suggested that it was unrealistic romantic fodder for women and that the main theme is just the song "School Days." He thus tells Ellen, "Maybe the Phantom could have gotten into that spot, covering half of his face like the Phantom's mask, and then begins singing "School Days" in an exquisite moment of passive-aggression. These moments reveal further the awful truth that it's the people closest to us that we are most capable of being cruel and petty towards.

          The film's greatest lack may be in wonder. One big knock-off then I'll talk about what they did right. The biggest problem with this movie is editing. My instinct is to lay this fault at the feet of the director, Billy Crystal, who directed just one other feature, and that three years before this one. This movie could have been shortened, not greatly, but a couple of scenes and montages were just a bit too long and some of the jokes probably looked good on paper, but should have been lost on the editing room floor. 

          Two items really sealed a high rating for this one. First we have the music, a mixed of composition for the film, which uses motifs and themes to create a real sense of continuity throughout the movie, and older mostly jazzy tunes that convey a sense of romance and nostalgia.
          The second item is the multitude of cameos by major NBA stars from the period. I'll just list some of the all-star talents: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Isiah Thomas, David Robinson, Spud Webb, Patrick Ewing, Tim Hardaway, Reggie Miller, Chris Mullin, and the most impressive one, in terms of his performance, is Sir Charles Barkley. Overall, the sense of reality and the height of the comedy are greatly improved by this tidbit.
          Hopefully I've convinced someone out there to indulge themselves in this beautiful film. It remains one of the funnier films I've ever seen and very dear to my sappy, romantic heart. Enjoy!

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou** (2004) 9.75, 9, 9.5, 28.25

          Dear friends, welcome to my review of The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. I already had a rating for this one and I can't say too much changed, excepting wisdom, but it will feel good to express my reasoning here. To it!
          For wit, I've given it a 9.75, up .25 from before, which was probably implicit in my previous rating. I looked to my favorite Wes Anderson film, The Royal Tenenbaums a lot to compare and contrast this film. They are delightfully different. This film is written differently in some of the most interesting ways. But first I'll note some pleasing similarities. The key to Wes' writing, to my mind, is his characters' open uncomfortability with the fact of living. Too often characters in films live in a way that obscures interiority and emphasizes their action. They live in a way that suggests little conflict and a surprising lack of confusion about what they do and why they do it. The center of this story is inhabited by Steve Zissou and a young Kentucky Airlines pilot who is rumored to be his son, Ned Plimpton. These two are played by Bill Murray and Owen Wilson, respectively.
          The relationship between these characters is exactly as one would imagine it, riddled with uncomfortable honesty and false familiarity. For the former I provide a quote, not particularly funny, but important to the tone of the film: 
          Steve: You're supposed to be my son, right? 
          Ned: I don't know. But I did want meet you, just in case.
I contrast this with this moment of unnecessary and awkward familiarity between these characters minutes later.
          Steve: You think you'll want to change your name?
          Ned: Ned?
          S: No, not the Ned part. Unless you want to. I meant your last name. I thought you might like to let me give you mine.
          N: Ned Zissou.
          S: Ned Zissou, exactly. Or, if you want to, you can change the first part too. I would have named you Kingsley, if I'd had a say in it.

N: Kingsley. I don't know. Maybe I'll stick with Ned for now.

S: Sure. That's okay.

I think that the relationship of these two begins as needy and pushy on Steve's part, accompanied by Ned's blind search for someone to fill that paternal role. But the beauty of it is that their relationship evolves into Steve taking inspiration and improving because of Ned and Ned accepting the extent to which he has to be his own man, even with a father.

          The story is good, but the acting takes it to another level. I've mentioned part of the genius of Bill and Owen's performances. They bring to life characters that live into the real-life awkwardness of writing one's own dialogue and living moment to moment. They are both born of their own situations, different as those are, but both open themselves with moments of clear plastic falsity and others of unadulterated feeling.
          Cate Blanchett inserts the awkward aspect of a love triangle between the possible father-son and she exquisitely crafts her character, Jane Winslett-Richardson, into something of her own, due in no small part to the writing surely, but with great dueling clarity and opacity that matches her male co-stars.
          Part of Wes' brilliance is his exciting minor characters and the wonderful actors he gets to take small roles, like Willem Dafoe as Klaus, Bud Cort as Bill the Bond Company Stooge, Anjelica Huston as Eleanor, and Jeff Goldblum as Alistair Hennessey. Willem does his best acting here, I think. Klaus is perfectly needy, passionate, and inarticulate: utterly childish. Jeff Goldblum plays the best upscale prig imaginable. Bud Cort, however, may be the scene-stealer of the film, as Bill the Bond Company Stooge. He begins as a joke before he even appears, only to prove to be the most utterly human person in the film, possibly apart from Ned.
          This movie sets itself above by being perhaps the funniest of Wes' films. I've already mentioned, though I can hardly do them justice here, Klaus and Bill, but some of my favorite moments center around Jane's attempt to give up cursing by saying "effing" whenever she has the urge. This is still only my second favorite instance of Wes Anderson finding a way around cursing, though. The rest of my favorite moments center on Zissou's use of interns. Examples:
          Steve tries to give Ned a gun.
          S: Here.
          N: Oh, no, no, no.
          S: No exceptions; everyone gets one. Anne-Marie, do the interns get glocks!
          Anne-Marie: No, they all share one.

          S: (To Pirate) Don't point that gun at him, he's an unpaid intern.
From here, I'd like to address moments that might be spoilers. For those who haven't seen this and don't want to know the ending just yet, skip past this.
******************************SPOILER WARNING*********************************
          One of the most impressive moments, both from the standpoint of wit and wisdom, is when Ned dies, near the end of the film. This is impressive for Wes as a writer, because he has a tendency to tie things a little too neatly at the end. At the end of most of his other films, everyone is accounted for. The lonely man finds a son in need of a father, the two loners find each other, the estranged couple rekindle a romance of sorts. This often works and I don't mean that this is universally a flaw, but Wes steps beyond that, if only for one film, to explore a story where we have some large gaps. When Ned dies, he was just becoming a son to Steve, a lover for Jane, and a member of the team, possibly a future father to Jane's baby, the last of which is even more important given the importance of father-son themes to the film.
           This is impressive from a wisdom standpoint, because it is a reminder that perfect situations like Ned's insertion to this group don't always last, but even when they don't, they can change individuals or groups for the better. A good man can do more good, even in a short time, than it's even possible for him to imagine.
          This also leads to another plot-sensitive note that affects the wisdom rating of this film. It is the power of death to work on us. At the beginning of the film, Esteban is lost to Steve and the whole company. His loss sends Steve on a mission that will change his life. This mission of revenge will eventually stall, but not until it accomplishes an impressive overhaul of his character. Ned comes to find Steve because of his mother's death, a decision which will ultimately prove fatal, but also the key to his self-fulfillment and his growing into his own image of a man. Ned's death finally brings Steve, his crew, and not least Jane to a new self-realization that may have been impossible otherwise. This all plays to my growing fellow-feeling with Tolkien's idea of death as a gift of God to Man, that in many ways the power of loss and pain may do good to us that sin did not foresee when it sought to kill us.
           One of the absolutely most important ideas in this film for me is that revenge is often crushed by knowledge. Revenge is a primordial instinct and even a possibly misguided pang for justice, but I think that the reason we are so often warned to avoid it is that so much of our bloodlust when it comes to revenge is shallow and unconcerned with justice for the wronged, but more concerned with childishly inflicting pain on that which inflicted pain upon us. Near the end of the film, when the group finally encounters the jaguar shark, we see the foolishness of placing blame with our own narrow perspective. When Steve re-encounters the animal, he no longer wants revenge, but sees that death happened and no punishment is needed. So, when we are wronged, the truth is that wrong is rarely simple, which is why it is so important to leave revenge to the one who sees clearly what is not simple.
           I think this concludes the plot-sensitive portion.
*******************************SPOILER ENDED***********************************

           A couple more ideas are worthy of note. The first, as I referred to earlier, is the theme of fathers and sons. This film speaks to the importance of that bond in Ned and Steve, even Klaus and Jane, but also to the importance of not relying on it, of forging your own destiny in the absence, inadequacy, or loss of a father (or father figure). Steve captures this in his quote, "I always hated fathers and I never wanted to be one."

          The last bit of importance is encapsulated in another quote from Steve. He says, just as they're about to see the jaguar shark,  "This is an adventure." He's pointing to the simple idea of life as something to be cherished and enjoyed and not something to be suffered through. It's simple and unprofound, but not a bad way to wake up.

          All this equals a move from 8.5 for wisdom to a 9.25. It's far from perfect, but it makes good points and not very many moral castoffs.

          Lastly, I move to wonder. I have it a 9.5 like before. Wes' flair for set design and visual attention to detail is no less present in this movie than in his best work. But a couple items 

stand out. First, music: this is the most memorable film of his in terms of music for two big reasons. First there is Seu Jorge and his Portuguese Bowie renditions. Bowie is the musical muse of this film, but Seu, both playing the hilariously named character, Pelé Dos Santos, and playing Bowie is the mood setter for the whole epic voyage. Second,  

we have Mark Mothersbaugh, who composed most of the rest of the soundtrack, including the highlight, possibly of all movie soundtracks ever, "Ping Island/Lightning Strike Rescue Op." This electronica masterwork is pulse-pounding, hair-raising, get-you-out-of-your-seat music. Listening to this in repeat as I wrote this is probably why it has taken so long. Not great work music, But there's almost nothing I'd rather dance to.

           Dance break. 

           Sorry, I'm back. The very last items of note are the fun uses of claymation to make up crazy non-sensical fish species and the little scale/"production value" items that really sell the world: the boat and the island.

           Overall, a great film. I haven't done it in a while, but just in case, for those concerned, the film contains derogatory language along with other cursing, no nudity, only implied sex, and some gunplay. And death. Certainly not for anyone too young.

           I hope this film brings you joy and my review can be the cherry on top. Au revoir!

On the Second Day of Christmas: Elf** (2003) 9.5, 9.25, 9.5, 28.25

          There are two initial points to be made. First, I am aware that it is the third day of Christmas as I write this. I am referring to my initiative to watch my 12 favorite Christmas movies on the twelve days of Christmas.
          I might also note that I watched The Nightmare Before Christmas on Christmas Day and was very disappointed on a rewatch of what I considered a shoe-in for the top 12 list. Why did it fail to make the list? I'll try to briefly explain.
          When I first watched this film, I was definitely in awe of stop-motion animation as a concept. Because of this, among other things, I didn't seem to notice the shallowness of the characters and the way in which the non sequitur of the concept trivializes all holidays and the holy days from which they come. I find the trivialization of Samhain or whatever morphed into Halloween almost as frustrating as the general trivialization of Christmas. And the love story also seems haphazard or worse, terribly unhealthy. Overall, I no longer feel this one deserves 5 stars and definitely falls short of the overall top 12 Christmas films.
          Second, this is the first review in which I've used .25 increments. I feel like this has been coming for a while. I need more room for nuance in my rating system. I am also trying very hard to be harder on movies in general recently, because I believe that the system is currently too top heavy. 9's have been pretty standard for a movie of any quality and there is less and less room for differentiating quality on the top end of my scale. Some will disagree and say I haven't been tough on Elf at all, but hopefully I explain myself well enough that I win some of you over. Brave new world.
          "You sit on a throne of lies." I watched this scene four times, not least for my niece, and burst out laughing every time. I just imagined it and nearly laughed out loud again. Will Ferrell's character, Buddy begins harassing a department store Santa about not being the real Santa. He leans in close, with a child on faux-Santa's lap, and says, "You sicken me. You sit on a throne of lies." No one alive today delivers a comedic line like Will. This film, as is the case with many of his films, could not have happened without him.
          The other acting standout of this film is Zooey Deschanel. Though it's weird now to see her with blond hair, this is The first place I ever saw her and I was sold from the beginning. She plays the whole part from the now seeming standard awkward strange to the now strange aloof, too cool vibe that she uses with Will initially. And her voice is hardly a surprise as her career as a recording artist has become a big part of her public life. But boy does she sing.
          Ed Asner is Santa. I am solidly of the opinion that Santa Clause died many years ago and never had magic powers, but if anyone could convince me otherwise, it's Ed, er...Mr. Asner. A nod of respect to the craft of Bob Newhart and James Caan. They both have significant parts and play them in such a way as to always be useful and dependable.
          Clearly you know, I think the writing of this movie is good, but I could quote another five scenes that made me bust up. For all these reasons, I went with a 9.5 for wit.
          Wisdom is more of a mixed bag. My biggest problem is the sanitized Christmas. Unlike TNBC, which reduced the message Christmas to pure joy, Elf emphasizes faith (if one in something different), love, and hope as the values of Christmas, as well as good cheer. But there is no denying the desacralization of Christmas still bothers me here.
          But this film still has some great messages. One of the best is a balance between work and other aspects of our lives, like family or even simple enjoyment. To that end, it also encourage people to do something they love like they love it, a message very near and dear to my heart.
          But this sanitized Christmas still bothers me. I might have given a 9.5 for wisdom in another time, but I feel it would just have been a 9.27 rounded up. The 9.25 is much more accurate.
          I recently read an article about pratfalls and the cerebralization of comedy. This person argued that comedy has become largely the realm of brainy stand-up types like Woody Allen. They lamented the loss of people who were willing to sacrifice there body for a joke. They need to be watching more Will Ferrell.
           I am a big fan of the great old physical comedians like Chaplin and Keaton. And I think Will is living up to that here. He gets hit by cab two or three times. I've been clipped by a car while walking and it hurts. The pain won't end your life, but it'll linger. And this Anointed of the gospel of joy takes those hits so little kids and I can giggle. God bless him.
          Thanks also to those that created he elaborate sets and animated castoffs from old Christmas stop-motion flicks. Lastly a written applause for the music and Zooey and Will's singing. All in all this stuff earned a solid 9.25.
          I'll admit that I'm watching these Christmas classics in no particular order, but I've no doubt this is among the top 5, maybe top 3. If you haven't seen it, make time for it this Christmas season that ends 6 January.
          God is come among us. Happy Christmas.

La Jetée* (1962) 9.5, 9.5, 9.75, 28.75

          A little while ago, Netflix surprised me by offering me a free trial to the DVD by mail service that I had subscribed to for about six years, but have been too poor for since returning to the US. When my account started back up, they sent me two movies rather quickly and I failed to check my queue. When I saw this film, in its two in a disc pack with Sans Soleil, I wasn't particularly excited. It sat in my queue for most of the time I had Netflix, just waiting until I was up to it. I was so loathe to get on with it that I sat through the other unfortunate get from my queue, The Privileged Planet.
          I do not recommend that movie, by the by, because it is poorly made and even more poorly argued. First, I agree with the conclusion that God created us and that we're important to him. Agreeing with that, I find the argument totally unnecessary. There is nothing about the grand story of Scripture or the essential theology of Christianity that requires that we be the whole or even the center of God's great, cosmic plan. This is a return to pre-Copernican fear of heliocentricity. Dorothy Sayers, in her translation of Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy, suggests that Dante would have found the heliocentric worldview more in line with his metaphors and his worldview, because it keeps man from imagining himself as the center of things and clarifies the fact of God as center. In this same way, I think that imagining man to be special misses the key point to the Scriptures, that man is only special because God loves him, coupled with the manifest fact that just because God is speaking to you doesn't mean he isn't speaking to anyone else.
          I find even more frustrating the lack of intellectual acumen used to promote vaguely Christian reasoning. While they make explicit reference to Sagan and other secularist scientists, they fail to note major arguments that shatter theirs advanced by these very thinkers. First, their entire theory is based on the idea that all the intelligent life in the universe looks like us, specifically is based in carbon, needs oxygen and water, etc. Sagan points out that its silly to think that a wide and varied universe might well have very different types of life, suited to their own environments. Second is the anthropic principle, which points out that most if not all of the arguments that suggest our environment is perfectly suited to us can be worked to support an Darwinian evolutionary perspective, because if there are infinite universes and an ever-expanding universe, eventually there would be a perfect place for beings like us to evolve and grow. Our planet/galaxy/universe wasn't designed for us, but we were designed by it. That's why we fit. I don't agree with all this reasoning, but I find it much more convincing than the arguments put forth by The Privileged Planet. Sorry to ramble, but this whole thing is very annoying.
          But on Monday I decided to finally sit down and try out this film, La Jetée. I was shocked. This half-hour film, if that term is appropriate (the creator called it a photo-roman, French for photo-novel), is one of the most impressive things I've ever seen. Let me break it down.
          For wit, I gave it a 9.5. I should point out that the form and length made me give it an automatic -.25 for each category, each for different reasons. I'll try to explain. My initial analysis of left me choosing a 9.75 for wit. The actors give great "performances," subtly using the handicap of single images to give us a pulled back view of two people falling in love. They do this with no dialogue and only one scene approaching full speed film. The same goes for writing. The narrator is pithy and eloquent, even occasionally funny. It would be a great film, if it had been filmed. But the handicap of the medium, the narrated, timed slide-show, keeps it from being quite as witty.
          For wisdom, I again chose a 9.5. Part of the trouble here is the medium. The narrator is so neutral that the majority of it leaves us with little to no message. The incidentals of the story are of a high quality though. Here we have a complex, beautiful love story told all in montage. Two beautiful souls giving themselves to each other in a limited, painfully limited way and coming away with no bitterness or reproach, only sadness when it is over. But no trace of selfish fling love of the post-modern variety, but pure, self-sacrificing, passionate love, without possession, but not without commitment. There is the briefest suggestion of fornication, but very forgivable, under the circumstances. Overall beauty, tinged with the sadness and evil of a post-apocalyptic autocracy that uses everyone and loves no one.
          For wisdom, I gave the highest, 9.75. This is in part because I had to do something to counter the -.25's, because though the medium keeps this film from perfection, it is one of the most interesting and beautiful directorial decisions I've ever seen and I wish more people would try it. But this exciting, novel method must get less than a perfect score, because it clearly avoids the trouble that would have accompanied trying to do these same scenes in full speed. This allows the post-apocalyptic scenario to be accomplished with less work and expense, which is a mixed bag. There's definitely some lack of "production value" here, to quote Super 8, but the film is truly fantastically made, from the music to the piecing together of the scenes to the amazing shot of the Arc de Triomphe bisected.
          The music, the work of Trevor Duncan, fills in the movement aspect lost within the medium and does it in a way that makes quite a bit more of it than it would be without it. The brilliant use of the still photos to speed up and slow down the pace and to give the film a beautiful simplicity and clarity is one of the most impressive things I've ever seen. The creation of post-apocalyptic Paris from stock photos is also inspired. Overall, this film comes in solidly at number nineteen all-time and thus gets into my forthcoming rewatch project for the top twenty-five.
          I hope everybody who takes me seriously about movies watches this film and enjoys it. It truly has taken my breath away. This is easily the shortest turn-around on a review since I've come home. Otherwise look forward to my first in the Rewatch series, the infamous The Dark Knight Rises (infamous only to me, because I chose to give it a perfect score when it first came out) coming soon. Enjoyez!

Blue Jasmine* (2014) 9.5, 9.75, 8.75, 28

         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!

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!