Okay, never write a “best of” list until you have seen everything eligible for entry. This is for me, but also to clarify some statements that people needed further explanation on. There are more reviews, as well as a more in depth review of a film I’ve already commented on.
Before I get started, just another quick comment on film, taste and reviewing art. Reviewing film is important. While it is obviously a subjective medium like all other art, taste in film is developed and dictated by knowledge and not popular opinion. And because box office returns are the name of the game, popular opinion will always have its hold on the medium; and that is exactly why measures of taste are so important. Film is the last universally recognized art form. The Paris Salon of the 19th century may have been open only to the social elite, but all social classes paid close attention to what happened inside, much like the Academy Awards of today. How a film is judged is important. It is vindication. When a prestigious award is granted to a film, even if it is not deserved, it is vindication and forever dictates how that film is remembered and compared to future films. And that is why, when politics and commerce start to influence and dictate taste, it is so important that the public can filter out difference. Like I said, film is the last universally recognized form of art, and art is the height of what humanity can aspire to. Therefore, the integrity of film must be maintained and fought for no matter what the consequence. Without art, nothing we do matters. Without art, we are just mammals, reproducing and eating and sleeping and being slaves to our genetic programming.
That said; let me get to the meat of this rant. First is a review of a film that has been widely praised, and it is a film that I wrote a quick comment on before. Because I was asked to elaborate on why it did not make my short list when it is nominated for best picture and has been given great reviews across the board, I will be more than happy to further explain.
Milk:
This is an important film. And I do recommend seeing it, because it holds a mirror to important current events. It is amazing to me that Proposition 6 was passed 30 years ago, and Proposition 8 failed today. This is supposed to be a progressive nation, where the rest of the world looks to for guidance, and yet we are still taking away peoples civil rights? It is a scary thought, to think that the Christian Right has more influence today than they did 30 years ago when it comes to witch hunts and halting progress. I look forward to a day when invoking the name of a magical space being is not an acceptable response when challenged with a clear cut case of right and wrong. Also, this is a groundbreaking film in the sense that it is a mainstream film that really celebrates gay culture. And in 20 years, that is what it will be remembered for.
Okay, with that out of the way, let’s get back to the film itself. Sean Penn is amazing in this film. It is easily one of the top five performances of the year. In fact, his performance outshines his supporting cast. James Franco, while he was great in Pineapple Express, really can’t hold his own in the scenes he shares with Penn. The only other actor that really isn’t dwarfed by this performance is Josh Brolin. But that isn’t grounds for an unfavorable review. The flaw in this film is the flaw of about half of every Biopic. It is boring, and lacks real drama (for those keeping score, the other half’s flaw is being a melodramatic homage, and no I do not give the biopic a fair chance). There was one point in the story where the director’s seam lines were showing. Instead of showing us the shops on Castro where Harvey Milk was shunned away from, they told us in voiceover while on screen we watched endless people happily shaking his hand and giving him their support. That is not drama. I know why Gus Van Sant went in this direction, but it was a mistake. Throughout the film, the director shy’s away from showing Harvey’s dedicated following as a fringe group, or an opposition to the status quo. But that’s not dramatic. People love an underdog, and by showing the opposition to Harvey’s following as the fringe group of fanatics, the film fails to reach a moral or teach you anything of value. In other words, the bad guys were bad does not a good story make. This was a good film, but far from great. And if I am going to practice what I preach, I cannot allow politics to dictate taste.
In Bruges:
I didn’t think Colin Farrell had it in him. Ralph Fiennes and Brendan Gleeson can be expected to deliver consistent performances, so it was not too much of a surprise that they were both great. But to date, I’ve yet to see Farrell deliver a performance that would have set precedence for the one we see in this film.
What a great little allegory this film turned out to be. A film about sin and penance, and how they differ for each character’s larger than life personality. The themes in this film are as biblical as Dante, and I’m not just referring to the obvious analogy that Bruges ends up as in the end(As a side note, they could have done without the voiceover at the end, because if you didn’t piece it together by then, you don’t deserve to be rewarded with explanation). And the best part of all is; it’s a comedy. And it’s a darkly funny one at that. Even the extreme acts of violence are so outlandish and over the top, that they too become humorous to the point of inappropriate laughter. Other directors that use gross out and shock value violence should take note (I’m looking at you Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez) Martin McDonagh uses a touch of subtlety and focuses on the set up to achieve this desired effect without creating an ugly film… cough… Grindhouse… cough…
And one more note on the acting. Ralph Fiennes is almost unrecognizable in this role, yet they did nothing to alter his appearance. The use of facial tics and mannerism transform him completely, and it is a shame that this film came out too early for him to be remembered during award season.
Doubt:
Much has been said about the acting in this film, and it deserves the attention it is getting, but the story itself is not completely lost in these great performances. It has a particularly strong meaning for someone who was raised Catholic. This film is a lot like being on a jury: The facts are laid out for you to the best of each character’s ability, and you are asked to make a decision based on what you know and how each character reacts to interrogation. I know what I think happened, but you may not agree.
And the acting is superb. This should have been a clear winner for best ensemble at the Screen Actors Guild awards, but unfortunately like most award shows, the S.A.G. awards have become a televised popularity contest. Meryl Streep transforms into the heartless, righteous Sister Beauvier, unable to admit her own faults and unable to have her opinion swayed by such trivial things like facts or reason. The film is her own personal witch hunt, founded by the fact that this younger, more contemporary Priest has ideas for bettering the church. Ideas like taking a personal interest in the happiness and development of the children that are left in their care. So of course he is suspected of abusing the children. Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays the Priest, Father Flynn, who clearly has something to hide. Every time he is accused, he fumbles and acts guilty, and does everything but defend his innocence. He’s clearly guilty, but of what crime? Amy Adams functions as our window into this world, and is as conflicted and confused as anyone watching the film. She is a shining bright spot in an otherwise dark film. Viola Davis, who has also gained attention for her role as the mother of the child caught in the middle of this battle of wills, gives a decent performance and holds her own in her one scene with Streep. That said, I cannot understand the across the board praise for her performance. She has one scene with dialogue, and Time Magazine thinks she deserves the Oscar? Maybe I missed something.
Every time I thought that this film was leaning one way, it would turn and lean the other. At times I feared that it would justify Sister Beauvier’s righteousness, leaving us with the message that facts are not important, at least compared with a light bulb blowing out at an ominous time. But then, the film would right itself again and leave the question open. And that is what makes this film interesting. Even if she is right about Father Flynn, she is wrong in how she gets there. And even if Father Flynn is innocent of the crime in question, he is clearly trying to cover up some wrong doing in his past. I wasn’t sold on this film as I was watching it, but it all comes together in the end. If anything, it is worth seeing if only to decide the Priest’s guilt for yourself.
The Reader:
With one of the best performances I have seen this decade, Kate Winslet brings to life one of the most tragic characters ever captured on film. And it is a performance that is asked to carry a remarkable film through subtle expression and heartbreaking honesty. The Academy got it right by nominating Winslet for best actress, instead of awarding her in a supporting role as all the precursors have done (and The Weinstein Company was clearly pushing for). She is the star of this film, whether the narrative comes from her or not. I loved Winslet in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (one of my favorite films), and never expected her to surpass that performance. But with The Reader, she cements her name in a fictitious hall of fame for actors.
What an accurate observation on the human condition, and what a shining example of the power of art (in this case, literature). The tragedy of Winslet’s character Hanna is that there is no poetry in her life. She is a blank canvas, void of conscience and understanding as well as the ability to forgive. And the reason for this raw, child-like id, is that she is an illiterate and has never developed what most of us take for granted every day. The fables and stories we are taught as children help us to develop a moral center, and give us an understanding of the world. Hanna is so damaged by this, that she cannot differentiate which flaw is worse, the murder of hundreds of people or her own illiteracy. And because she has been concealing it for so long, she even goes so far as to side with the later. She plays this child-like game of “an eye for an eye” with a 15 year old boy that she then decides to sleep with. So it is all the more tragic when she is read to, inevitably developing a sense of right and wrong as well as a conscience, too late to change the mistakes of the past.
Here, Stephen Daldry crafts a film that allows the actors to say it all with a raised eyebrow, and never misses a beat. And that is a sign of a great job done by the director. Never is a theme, analogy or metaphor beaten to death (sorry, I couldn’t resist the irony). But instead, by embracing self-confidence and confidence in the actors, Daldry is able to fully explore real ideas and flaws in humanity. This film does a masterful job of pointing out our need to have examples made of people, as if to appease some warped sense of justice. In that sense, we have not come so far from sacrificing the village virgin to the god in the volcano. And there is no way to review this film without mentioning Roger Deakins. Deakins is the most consistently great Cinematographer (Director of photography for the learned crowd) working today. He is able to create scenes of such intimacy that are only added to by nakedness, instead of the nudity itself being expected to flesh out the scene.
I found this to be a very challenging film; but how you feel towards the characters or whether you think they deserve absolution or forgiveness does not matter in the end. Either way, if you love good cinema, you will find it captivating and will develop an opinion of your own.
That’s it for now. Hope you enjoyed these reviews, and that you will continue to read them as I plan to keep these going over time. Please feel free to request any reviews, and to comment on the ones you have read.
Thanks,
Ryan Black
January 29, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment