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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
