RockNRolla Giveaway
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Tour Spout | Sign up

BigJeffLebowski Blog

  • Summer Palace

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Summer Palace  (2006)

    Whenever a film depicts the lives of fictitious individuals against a noteworthy historical backdrop, the question must be raised: do the filmmakers use their characters to humanize an otherwise emotionally unfathomable event, or do they cheaply exploit it to give their film greater social, political, intellectual, or philosophical weight?  For the first half of its nearly two and a half hour running time, Lou Ye's Summer Palace manages to deftly filter the unrest of late 1980s China through the microcosm of a teen attending Beijing University.  But following a dramatization of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations (and a where-are-they-now montage that swiftly glosses over the next decade), the film struggles for the next hour to rediscover the tone and pace that made its story thusfar so resonant.

    Yu Hong, a teenager from Tumen, serves as our protagonist and Metaphor with a capital M.  Yu Hong is a thoughtful yet uncertain girl, more sure of what she doesn't want to be than what she does.  She enters university with hopes of dashing her small town ennui, but finds instead that the uncertainties of adult life are greater than those of adolesence.  At first lonely and introverted, Yu Hong is befriended by Li Ti, a fellow student, who introduces her to Zhou Wei.  At first coy towards one another, the two begin the kind of courtship that seemingly only occurs in books and movies by or about disaffected poetic types; in between having sex and saying things like "I think we should break up, because I don't think I could stand to lose you," she grows restless, testing the waters of her relationship, pushing the boundaries of Zhou Wei's allegiance to see how far they will bend.

    And yet she is inconsolable when they finally break.  Moving on from one loveless, impulsive, illicit romance to another, Yu Hong seems intent on alienating everything and everyone for whom she cares.  Hers is the kind of self destructive behavior that seems aloof on the surface but stems from a deep current of doubt.  Afraid to have anything taken from her against her will, she tests everyone who enters her life -- an endless string of Jobs of varying degrees of love-blind acceptance.  If they can endure Yu Hong's games, the logic follows, they will be willing and able to maintain.  If, however, they do not, she can rest knowing that it was by her own choice and actions that their relationship has severed.

    It is too late when Yu Hong realizes that there is more than empty consolation in the old trope that it's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.  As the chasm between her ideal and her actual lives grows, her affairs become more reckless, until a tragic event reminds her of what is truly important to her -- and how irreparably she has sabotaged it.

    If this were all, the film would be an entertaining, if somewhat heavy handed, treatise on self realization and positive actualization; a pleasant and illuminating microcosm of the country and its times.  But the last hour of the film constantly teases the audience with a resolution that it doesn't deliver.  While the moral implications of the film's non-ending are significant, they are no different than those drawn from the film's midpoint, which would have made a more logical conclusion.  There simply isn't enough going on over the next fifteen years of Yu Hong's life to warrant an additional hour of film.  Nothing that any of the characters begin after college is explored, nor is it resolved.  Perhaps this is the film's conceit, that there will always be a disparity between how we'd like things to occur and how they do, and that it's more often than not our own fault, due to blinders we don't know we're wearing.  But that point was made succinctly halfway through the film; everything that comes after is beating a dead horse.

    This is not to say Summer Palace is a bad film.  The first half is a moving evocation of those uncertain years between childhood and adulthood in which our illusions of life crumble around us and we are left, ill equiped with mediocre tools, to rebuild them stronger than before.  The sex scenes -- of which there are many -- are surprisingly tender.  They do not titilate, instead they give us insight into a side of the characters which they hide, sometimes even from themselves.  Ultimately, it is tedious at its worst, but brilliant at its best.


  • This Town Deserves a Better Class of Cinema, and I'm Gonna Give It to Them

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Godfather  (1972)

    Unforgiven  (1992)

    Heat  (1995)

    X-Men  (2000)

    Memento  (2000)

    X2: X-Men United  (2003)

    Superman Returns  (2006)

    Iron Man  (2008)

    The Dark Knight  (2008)

    The Dark Knight, the most anticipated picture of the year for myself and innumerable others, has finally arrived following a trail of hype that would crush almost any film.  But miraculously, just as Moses wielded his stone tablets, Christopher Nolan has handed us a true gift from the cinematic gods.  His second Batman is so visceral, so propulsive, so maddeningly perfect in its execution that it should come with a warning; you do not simply watch The Dark Knight, you surrender your pulse to Christopher Nolan.  And even if an intended triptych has been tragically cut short (as Mel Brooks might contend those aforementioned commandments were) what remains is wholly qualified to stand on its own not as a great Batman film, not as a great superhero film, and not as a great action film, but as one of the most distiguished pieces of filmmaking of its generation.

    This decade, more so than any other, has seen comic-to-film adaptations mature from vacuous thrills to serious art.  Sam Raimi gave them their candy colored coming-of-age angst with his Spider-Man series; Jon Favreau gave them their sociopolitical meta-narrative with his first Iron Man; and Bryan Singer has alternately given them their conflicts of appearance/intention and assimilation/assertion (X-men, X2) and their visual and tonal poetry (Superman Returns).  But by taking one of the most psychologically rich and practically feasible comic book heroes and stripping him of all remaining contrivance and camp, Nolan has arguably bested them all by instilling his Gotham -- and its inhabitants -- with a gritty realism that absolutely demands as much emotional and technical veracity as an escapist action-adventure will allow.

    Perhaps Nolan's greatest asset as a filmmaker is his unwavering dedication to making his characters' actions and emotions utterly believable within the constricts of his chosen narrative.  One needn't look any farther than Nolan's breakthrough sophomore film, Memento, to see that what sets him apart from almost every other filmmaker working today is his complete command of both the internal and external machinations of his characters.  Rarely, if ever, do you see a writer-director working in Nolan's genres with such an assured and astute grasp on human emotion and interaction.  His application of binary opposition in both plot and theme is unmatched in today's cinema.  There is a constant tug of war in Nolan's films, a philosophical debate between chance and fate, between reason and impulse, between light and dark, etc.  Any screenwriter can set up archetypes and let them stand in contrast to one another, but the beauty of a Nolan script is that the true conflict lies inside the characters.  Nolan understands that the line between friends and enemies is moveable, based more on circumstance than on the people themselves.

    And what people they are.  Christian Bale's Batman has become beautifully economic in both word and action.  Gary Oldman's Lieutenant Gordon is an even stronger edifice of morality and decency.  Maggie Gyllenhaal's Rachel Dawes is a noteworthy trade-up from the first film, with composure, confidence, and sexuality in equal measure.  Michael Caine's Alfred is humane, silently compassionate, and so much more than the stuffy butler to which he is all too often reduced.

    But Heath Ledger's Joker.

    I'm really not sure what I can add to the innumerable accolades already heaped upon this utterly unnerving, raw, feral, fearless, unshakeable performance.  Nothing is done out of vanity, nothing for cheap thrills.  True, I feel the talk of Oscar gold is both premature and hyperbolic, but I would be surprised to not see Ledger on the list of nominees.

    The Dark Knight is that rare genre film that changes the vocabulary of its genre -- no small feat given the leaps and bounds comic book films have already taken over the past few years.  That The Godfather, Heat, A Clockwork Orange, and Unforgiven have all been cited as influences on the film is no surprise; what all of these exceptional pictures share in common with one another is an intellectual maturity that nonetheless refuses to compromise entertainment for intelligence.

    Whether or not the few muffled criticisms that the film is too long, too packed with characters and information, too frenetic, or too climactic are valid is up to the viewer to decide on an individual basis.  While I will agree that the film is denser and more earnest than its peers, I refuse to accept that this is to its detriment.  Nolan has taken a lofty gamble, and we have all walked away from the table with more chips than we can carry.


  • "You either steal with a gun or a pen."

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Manda Bala  (2007)

     

    It has always seemed strange to me for documentaries to use the credit "A Film By" for their directors.  Something about propriety of the intellectual material, I suppose.  One likes to ascribe the documentary filmmaker an objective, anthropological eye.  But just because a filmmaker is more subtle than Michael Moore (or, for that matter, more interested in their subject than their own opinions of it) it does not unequivocally follow that their film is any less a manifestation of their own vision.

     

    Within this logic, Manda Bala earns its "A Film By Jason Kohn" credit by being a visceral, vital film which cunningly uses populist suspense narrative conventions and visual panache to highlight the Orwellian and Nietzschean undercurrents of current Brazilian society.  When the final credits roll, listing the interviewees' names beside their title or occupation, it reads uncannily like the cast list from a fictitious film.  It is strangely appropriate, as Kohn has managed to weave a tapestry that is both broad and personal, entertaining and informative, stylish and substantial, all with the brisk, effortless flair of Martin Scorsese or Paul Thomas Anderson.

     

    Beginning with the frog farm scandals which are said to have been responsible for nine million of the two billion dollars stolen from SUDAM by corrupt politicians for personal gain, the film branches out to include the rampant kidnapping which occurs daily in Sao Paolo as well as bulletproofing, anti-kidnapping officers, state prosecutors, local media, reconstructive surgery for kidnapping victims, and other such ancillary subjects.  Kohn interviews a wide cross section of Brazilians, creating a surprisingly pragmatic virtual schema of Brazilian societal order, and of how intricately entwined all of its levels are.  Included are Diniz, the frog farmer; "Mr. M", the upper middle class businessman; Jamil, the anti-kidnapping detective; Dr. Avelar, the plastic surgeon; Patricia, the kidnapping victim; Jader Barbalho, the corrupt politician; and, most chillingly, "Magrinho," the thief, kidnapper, and sometime murderer.

     

    By focusing on these and several other individuals who epitomize their social roles, Kohn's subjects do tend to come off as archetypes.  But the inclusion of telling personal details and the undeniable gravity of the situation keep them from becoming stereotypes or mere summations of their demographics.  Instead, they balance delicately on the precipice of creating a cogent generalized chart of role and relation while still asserting they are real people and not mere theoreticals.

     

    To this end, Kohn also illustrates several broader parallels among his subjects.  Most unsettling is that which is drawn between the kidnappers and the politicians.  In both groups, many flock around few who have managed to abuse and exploit their surroundings to their own benefit.  As "Magrinho" astutely points out, "You either steal with a gun or a pen."  These are not groundbreaking concepts, mind you, but the lucidity and the lack of irony with which the criminal is able to delineate between his role in his microcosmic slum society and his role in the greater society of Brazil is disquieting.  What makes the parallels between the upper class and the lower class even more unsettling is the inability to tell who is being compared to whom.  Ultimately, Kohn compares both Barbalho and "Magrinho" to Diniz, the frog farmer.  "I would never kill a wild frog," Diniz insists, explaining that the frogs he cultivates are born to a different destiny, a destiny that apparently involves their slaughter for his profit.  In his frogs we see the citizens of Brazil, those who have suffered loss from the injustices of both government and terrorism.  "Cannibalism only happens," he continues, "when there isn't enough food."

     

    We see shades of Orwell in the citizens who express interest in a computer chip implanted under the skin which will allow them to be tracked in the event of a kidnapping.  They are willing to give up their privacy -- and with it, some of their basic human liberties -- in order to be protected.  Protected by a government whose indiscretions are directly responsible for the violence from which these citizens seek protection.  The irony of such a self perpetuating downward spiral would almost be beautiful in a cyclical, Nietzschean sort of way if that cycle weren't so deadly.  And if it didn't reflect so clearly on the current world at large.

     

    Claudio Fonteles, the Attorney General of Brazil, whom I would assume has read some Nietzsche and Marx, explains that the goal in Brazil is not to "defeat the giant," but rather to hit it constantly so as to not allow it to be comfortable.  To remove one giant is to open the door for another, and as Manda Bala shows, the cycle is deep rooted and very hard to break.  That it shows this so stylishly -- and as means to such a broader, more generally/theoretically didactic end -- will likely invite accusations of exploitation.  I disagree.  I feel that Kohn should be commended for his sheer talent as a filmic storyteller and considered lucky for finding such a topical subject that would allow him to express these specific socio-political-philosophical concerns with concrete examples of empirical fact.

     

    Regardless of intention, Manda Bala is engaging, entertaining cinema that is neither nebulous nor sensationalist in its handling of a subject whose implications far surpass its own geographic boundaries.  Using cinematography, editing, and soundtrack to enhance rather than merely transmit its central thesis, the film manages to succeed in both form and content, creating a symbiosis between style and substance that is more organic, engrossing, and effectual than that which most lesser films ever attempt, let alone achieve.


  • Cannabis, Cupcakes, and Communism

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]

    If Smiley Face were directed by Spike Jonze, it would have been a masterpiece.  Its script, by Dylan Haggerty, is consistently entertaining, frequently hysterical, and occasionally quite inventive in how it depicts a day in the life of its stoner protagonist.  Perhaps even more importantly, it understands the episodic, tangential logic of the pothead.  The specious associations, the noncommittal detours of thought and action, the staunch belief in the nobility of your quest, the disparity between what you mean to say and what actually comes out of your mouth; all are rendered with a knowing clarity that will be commended by the herbal enthusiast and will, hopefully, prove enlightening to those members of the square community who wouldn't know from personal experience.  But just as brilliance borne of bong hits tends to collapse upon itself in sober language, so too does Haggerty's script in the hands of director Gregg Araki.

     

    The tones of the script and the direction are strangely at odds with one another.  Haggerty, it seems, envisions Smiley Face as a Kaufman-esque romp a la Being John Malkovich.  Araki, on the other hand, appears to be aiming for Half Baked.  It's actually quite the anomaly.  There are many great scripts which have been diluted by pedestrian direction, but it's rare to see premise and presentation duke it out so heatedly.

     

    Bickford Shmeckler's Cool Ideas, for instance, boasts one of the greatest independent screenplays of the decade; its direction, unfortunately, is not of the same caliber.  But where the sublime Bickford's occasionally weak presentation can be attributed to budgetary restraints and writer-director Scott Lew's inexperience behind the camera, Smiley Face is wrong by design.  With another script, the certainty with which Araki creates his vision would be commendable.  Here, however, his steadfast commitment to his vision is to the detriment of the overall film.  I am more inclined to forgive a director who can't quite get it perfectly right than one who gets it purposefully wrong.  (I'm looking at you, too, Paul Haggis.)

     

    This is not to say that Araki doesn't do anything right.  The irony -- and what is ultimately most frustrating about the film -- is that the cast and crew pretty much nail what Araki asks of them.  But his allegiance is to his vision of the screenplay, not to the screenplay itself.  Rather than make a film about silly things, Araki has simply made a silly film.  Being John Malkovich, as an example, works because the characters are not in on the joke.  In Smiley Face, however, everyone is painted with too broad a brush.

     

    Everyone, that is, except Jane.  Anna Farris, to whom I am usually indifferent, proves herself a comedienne of immeasurable skill and intelligence.  If Lucille Ball got high, it would look something like this.  Everything she does -- the drawn out pauses, the abrupt shifts, the incongruity between tone and content -- rings both funny and true.  It is a bold, boisterous performance that demands attention.  Unfortunately, it also demands a straight man to play off of, something the film does not provide.  John Cho is the kind of dry, deadpan foil Farris needs, but he is onscreen for a scant two scenes.  Under a more confident director the love-struck Brevin Ericson could have filled this quota.  But Araki, seemingly afraid to let so much as a single shot go by without a gag, directs John Krasinski to play Brevin as a Napoleon Dynamite when the film really needs a Michael Bluth.

     

    On "Arrested Development," Jason Bateman played Michael Bluth as the audience surrogate, assuring us that, yes, it's all nonsense and these people you're watching are not normal; without him we would feel lost, as though we were missing part of the joke, which is pretty much how you feel through much of Smiley Face.  Which is a shame, because the jokes are phenomenal, even when they aren't executed to their fullest.  (Jane's logic behind framing a portrait of President Garfield as a short-hand way of saying she likes to eat lasagna is particularly inspired.)

     

    Having seen the film several times, I can assure you that it does reward repeat viewings; granted, this may be because it takes that long to fight your way through Araki's direction, but Haggerty's script and Farris's performance yield enough moments of inspired stoner glory to justify the effort.  And please give a raise/promotion/Oscar to whoever is responsible for the unlikely yet inspired casting of Adam Brody as Jane's dealer.  That was totally awesome, man.


  • "Liberate yourself from mental slavery"

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Africa Unite  (2007)

    Africa Unite is a film with noble intentions and a wealth of entertaining and enlightening material.  As a documentary, it is a distilation of the annual summit of the same name, during which the musical and political legacy of Bob Marley is celebrated through song and symposium.  Every year, ambassadors from across the world gather -- this particular time in Ethiopia, the birthplace of the Rastafari movement -- to engage in academic discourse with the intent of unifying the countries of Africa into one autonomous unit not unlike the United States of America.  This goal was the main ideological message of Bob Marley's music, and as such, the summit is held in his honor and features renditions of his songs by a multitude of reggae's current luminaries, including his sons.

    That Bob Marley's message was inextricable from his music is sometimes lost on generations of casual fans who only know his songs from commercials and the "Legend" compilation.  But to be sure, Marley was a tireless crusader for the reclaiming of Africa from the European nations who colonized it.  Before Africa was divided by and distributed among the European powers in 1884, Ethiopia spanned the entire continent; following European encroachment, Ethiopia remained the only independent country in Africa, successfully defending itself against Italian invasion in 1896.  In 1930, Haile Selassie I was crowned emperor of Ethiopia and gave voice to the movement of black Africans against imperial European rule.  A descendant of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, Haile Selassie -- later known as Ras Tafari Mekonnen -- was believed by Rastafarians to be Jah, the true descendent of God and member of the Holy Trinity, and as such, Ethiopia was believed to be Zion.

    This is worth noting not only for historical purposes, but also because for many of those attending Africa Unite, the journey signified not only an academic symposium or a music festival, but a religious pilgrimage to the land granted them directly from God.  This is best illustrated in the scenes following Bongo Tawney, a Rastafarian who travels for the first time to his motherland for the festival.  To follow him from his home in Jamaica -- where as a youth he met Haile Selassie -- to the religious shrines of Ethiopia, one realizes the significance of Africa Unite.  The music, which is likely to be the draw for most viewers, is merely at the service of the political and religious determinism at work within these procedings.

    "They say Rome was not built in a day," states Dr. Tajudeen Abdulrahim in one of the many political debates, "but the Romans were there to build it.  Nobody will build this continent for us, we will build it for ourselves."  And so it becomes apparent that Africa Unite is designed to make history, not simply to recognize it.  The people who came did so not because they were fans of the musicians but because they felt it was their duty and their right to speak up against a social, political, and religious injustice which is still perpetrated to this day.  That their individual voices can be heard and their plight discussed in depth is why Africa Unite succeeds as an event.

    As a film, however, it does suffer from wanting to have its cake and eat it too.  In an effort to preserve the flavor of the event itself, director Stephanie Black jumps back and forth freely from musical performances to archival newsreels to roundtable discussions to travelogues of those in attendance.  It gives you a great sense of the sheer scope of Africa Unite.  But ultimately, because the film tries to cover so much ground in less than an hour and a half, it spreads itself a bit too thin and subsequently fails to fully satisfy as either a concert film or as an informative documentary.

    Of course, had Black chosen to document only the musical performances, the intent of Africa Unite would have been almost entirely lost.  Conversely, a documentary about Africa's history or a less truncated record of the discussions and workshops presented at the symposium would appeal to a much smaller audience and would fail to spread the message of African unity very far beyond those who already champion such a goal.  As such, it's hard to fault an eighty-nine minute film for failing to provide the full breadth of a multi day extravaganza.  Perhaps we should just consider the words of Bongo Tawney:

    "I don't want nothing else from Rasta.  I just put away the worldly things and put away the difference and just live love with people." 


  • "If you haven't seen it, please do."

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    "If you haven't seen it, please do."

    -Richard Dawkins, parenthetically discussing Monty Python's The Meaning of Life in his book The God Delusion.

     

    If Monty Python's The Meaning of Life is remembered less fondly than their earlier classics Monty Python and the Holy Grail and The Life of Brian, this is not to say that the film has fewer laughs or that the point of Monty Python's satire has in any way been blunted.  Granted, the humor is arguably the Pythons' most vulgar and can at times come across as crude.  But watching The Meaning of Life a quarter of a century after its release, what remains shocking is not the wealth of projectile vomit, naked breasts, or children singing about sperm; what continues to alienate and to offend is the film's surprisingly direct attack on what it considers a terribly misguided society.  And the worst offender?  Christian ideology and rhetoric.

    The Pythons -- Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin -- were always practitioners of silly sophistication, and their combination of the intellectual and the low brow is one of the many factors that has assured them a wide and varied audience.  Few performers have the confidence, the skill, and the intelligence to pull off this Trojan Horse; Steve Martin's signature arrow-through-the-head belied a deeply philosophical bent, and few would find in Take the Money and Run evidence of the mature filmmaker Woody Allen would become over the next decade.  But it can be argued that no one has been more innovative, more inspired, and more inspiring than Monty Python.

    It is in The Meaning of Life, their last film, that the Pythons most fully indulge their dual passions for both silliness and sophistication.  It has been argued that by this late point in their career, the Pythons' well was running dry; of this I remain unconvinced.  To its credit, The Meaning of Life is the most technically proficient of the Monty Python films, and though its momentum does wane due to its episodic nature, revisiting the sketch format of "Monty Python's Flying Circus" allows the film to throw a few punches it may have pulled were it constrained to a plot.

    Also to the film's credit, even without a single unified narrative running through it, The Meaning of Life is no less thematically coherent than Holy Grail or The Life of Brian.  Lurking beneath the anarchic surface is an unexpectedly intelligent and barbed attack on consumerism, religion, and other modern social maladies that ultimately clutter, confuse, and complicate our lives.  What materializes through the grotesquerie is a strong call for logic and science; I believe that this subtly didactic tone and blatant disdain for abuses of commerce and faith (which could be misread as elitism) is the main reason The Meaning of Life is so often overlooked in the Python oeuvre.

    Granted, this film doesn't mark the first time the Pythons have levelled some blows at organized religion, but it may be the first time they have allowed a whiff of malice to creep in.  It would not be entirely erroneous to reason that if an anti-Christian sensibility were solely to blame for The Meaning of Life's somewhat besmirched reputation, then the near-universally praised The Life of Brian should have similar detractors.  While there are those who consider The Life of Brian a deeply insensitive and offensive work, they are considerably fewer and represent a much smaller, much more specific demographic.  Why is this?

    Whether consciously or unconsciously, the Pythons seem to have been using The Life of Brian as a test to see just how much they could get away with.  It is clearly their most crafted film, a necessity given its subject matter.  But while The Life of Brian may represent the culmination of a lot of the Pythons' subtextual themes and deals far more overtly with the Christian mythology, it does so in a largely joking, nudging way.  If one were so inclined, he or she could easily watch and enjoy The Life of Brian without subscribing to (or even acknowledging) its critical, subversive ideology.  Perhaps this is the key to great satire, to be able to hide your teeth in a smile.  Regardless, it would be far more difficult for a devout theist to enjoy The Meaning of Life, which frequently seems dissatisfied merely pointing out the faulty logic of pious rhetoric, preferring instead to (literally) sing and dance around the point.  There is no context to soften the blow as there is in The Life of Brian; you can almost hear the Pythons laughing at their audience even as they laugh with them, insisting, "You think this is nonsense?  You should see yourselves!"

    To this end, what many find offensive I find refreshing.  I respect an artist who can make big ideas palatable for the general public.  While many young people may not know of Russell's teapot, they may have instead heard of The Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Invisible Pink Unicorn.  What these two symbols of modern day Atheism/Skepticism have in common with Monty Python is a belief that the manifestations of religious fundamentalism are so ludicrous, so fantastical, and so willfully offensive to logic that they can only be responded to with nonsense of equal measure; anyone who ignores reason will not be swayed by it, no matter how sound.

    An unfortunate reality is that disciples will not always take the right lessons from their masters.  Just as the church often perverts the religion it sets out to uphold, so too have subsequent filmmakers and comedians taken the Pythons' willingness to push the boundaries of taste but have ignored or left behind their intelligence and sense of purpose.  The Pythons are a bright bunch and are undoubtedly reluctant fathers to the gross-out school of comedic one-upmanship which has flourished in their wake.  And so before you criticize The Meaning of Life for excess, for vulgarity, and for abuse of power with deleterious intent, consider first that its targets are guilty of the same (and to a much greater degree).  At least Monty Python have taken the time and the care to look behind the curtain before it is hung.


  • "Poetry don't work on whores."

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    There was a time when stately, elegaic, artfully shot and leisurely paced films not unlike Andrew Dominik's The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford were made by major studios, given major awards, and praised by critics and audiences alike.  Granted, this time was before I was born, so I'm taking the word of respected elders, the so-called Movie Brats, and the good folks over at the Criterion Collection.  Maybe it's true that populist entertainment has always been populist entertainment, and thoughtful works have always had a marginalized audience, but it certainly seems like poetic character studies of this ilk have become fewer, farther between, and certainly less publicized.

    Casey Affleck stars as Robert Ford, a nineteen year old enamored of the legendary exploits of Jesse James (Brad Pitt), already a mythical anti-hero by thirty-four.  As Affleck plays him, Ford is shy, socially awkward, and caught up in the mythology of the James Gang far more than the realities of it.  He keeps a box of clippings and souveneirs of James in a shoebox under his bed, both proud of and embarrassed by his collection, as an adolescent might be of his stack of Playboys.  He fetishizes the life of an outlaw into a profession far more noble than it actually is; ultimately, he is little more than an opportunist.  The James brothers see through him; Frank (Sam Shepherd) wisely stays away.

    As the film progresses, the silences that punctuate the increasingly strained conversations grow.  So too do the unspoken thoughts and emotions of all parties involved.  These are thieves who were not thick to begin with, and their trust in one another is tenuous at best.  Ford grows to despise James.  As James tells Ford, the stories he's read in the papers and the sensationalist paperbacks he's collected since childhood are all lies.  The reality of life outside the law is far less romantic than Ford had imagined, and, understandably so, James is not as welcoming to his skittish admirer.  Feeling rebuffed by his idol, Ford begins to feel that the only way to step out of the shadow into which he has placed himself is to turn against James.

    Even though it features one of the greatest train robberies put to film, this is no action film.  Instead, Dominik opts for a meditative study of inferiority, idolatry, revenge, and guilt.  Affleck, who seems to age throughout the film, is excellent in the role.  To watch his eccentricites and his forced smile shift from awkward and shy to malicious and deceitful is to witness a performance of unexpected subtlety and nuance.  Pitt, too, is superb, playing James as a secret celebrity, just past his prime, whose measured generosity, omniscience, violence, and heartlessness coalesce into a singular being at once frightening and alluring.  His jocularity is more unnerving than his cold blooded vengeance ever could be, for it is unexpected, unreliable, and often takes its delight in the least appropriate events and circumstances.

    The rest of the cast is strong, even though many of the ancillary characters are utilized for little more than plot.  (Composer Nick Cave is given an amusing scene as a troubador, but a cameo by James Carville as the governor is somewhat jarring and robs the film of some of its verisimilitude.)  And with so many of them appearing sporadically and for such short periods of time, the film has some trouble maintaining the brilliance and tension of its first half hour throughout its second and third acts.  The narration, too, is overused at times, occasionally overstating what can already be gathered from what is on screen.  Though this is not a terrible oversight, it is strangely at odds with the subtlety of the rest of the screenplay.  Still, what the film lacks in immediacy it makes up for in the way that it burrows under your skin, its themes refusing easy resolution even after the film has ended.

    In another time, a film like this may have won a larger audience.  It's measured restraint and its insistence on speaking more with silence is certainly not for all tastes.   But for the patient and the thoughtful, there is much to be taken from the film, a great deal of which is morally ambiguous and left open to the viewer's interpretation.  Not to mention, it's got one of the best titles of the year.


  • Recovery Chic

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Clean  (2004)

    It would seem that society is increasingly embracing the present and the past.  For all of the market testing, advance polling, and research analysis which has reduced so many of our figureheads to puppets caught in the winds of popular opinion, there is a growing lack of restraint and forethought in the actions of many of our celebrities.  Chalk it up to the information age if you'd like, to the ubiquitous surveilance we are under from the totalitarian slanted government, the predatory press, and every schmuck with a camera phone; perhaps we have no choice but to wash and dry our dirty laundry in the public eye.  Still, the sea change in how information is delivered seems to have resulted in decisions made for the short term becoming far more prevelant than they ever were before.  We needn't look any farther than Lindsay Lohan's latest attempt at respectability after several stints in rehab: posing as Marilyn Monroe in New York magazine.  It's mind-bogglingly embarrassing.  Let's let the analytic take a break and eschew the subtext.  Let's not mention that the photos of Marilyn were taken while she was drunk and several weeks before she died of an overdose; let's also not mention that splaying your nude body before the camera does little to increase your respectability as an actress or as a woman.  Let's ignore all of that.  Let's just look at the fact that she looks terrible.  At twenty-one, she looks twice as old as Marilyn did at thirty-six.  And those freckles?  Firecrotch indeed, Mr. Davis.  There is simply a lack of what strikes me as common sense.  Now, I have never been one to project too far into the future (probably why I continuously languish as a novice chess player) but I can't help but look at society today and wonder how much of what goes on is going to be deeply, deeply regretted by those involved when it shows up on a tasteless VH1 special designed to manufacture nostalgia for a time that was insufferable the first time, let alone revisited in endless syndication.

    The reason I bring this up is because Clean is a rare film in that it shows someone whose life has fallen apart publicly and who, not always with ease or pleasure, realizes that it is more advantageous to look to the future than to the present.  Maggie Cheung plays Emily Wang, a former television personality whose common-law marriage to aging rockstar Lee Hauser (James Johnston) ends with his death from a drug overdose.  Arrested for possession, but cleared of any charges related to Lee's death, Emily emerges six months later jobless and in debt -- check the boxes of both money and karma -- and with a young son, Jay (James Dennis), now fatherless.  Lee's father Albrecht (Nick Nolte), who has been taking care of his grandson in the absence of both a mother and a father, is granted legal custody and kindly asks that Emily keep her distance for several years.  Motivated to do right by her son, she embarks on a journey of self reflection and improvement that will take her through several jobs in several countries, sustaining herself by the generosity of the few remaining friends who don't blame her for Lee's death.

    Much has been said of Cheung's performance, and deservedly so.  She has a combination of poise, determination, fragility, and uncertainty that effectively communicates all of the details that the film only briskly and implicitly states.  Nonetheless, the most surprising performance of the film is that of Nick Nolte.  Nolte is an actor whose reputation and whose name precede his performances; in his later roles, he seems to have perfected a gruff, woozy, willfully aloof character whose charm just makes up for his lack of refinement, tact, and prudence.  In Clean, he conducts a thrilling sneak attack.  What begins looking like another one of Nolte's wonderful messes ends up being a surprisingly thoughtful, resolute, avuncular gentleman with more heart than luck.  If he looks haggard and worn down, it is only because he is emotionally and physically spent from caring for his ailing wife, his troubled daughter-in-law, and his fatherless grandson, not to mention mourning his deceased son.  His is the kind of selfless, pragmatic forward thinking that Emily recognizes she must emulate, even if she does not say so explicitly.

    Still, the film is not without its flaws.  I would have sacrificed some of the drawn out third act for a little more of the first, which deftly navigated the world of mid-level rock and roll (with cameos from Metric and Tricky for added credibility).  The performance of James Dennis as Jay is also tonally at odds with the rest of the cast, but I've come to accept that not every child actor is going to be a revelation along the lines of an Abigail Breslin. Regardless, I praise Olivier Assayas for delivering a film that is surprinsgly -- and thankfully -- short on cheap sentimentality and which rewards practicality and pragmatism over impudence and audacity.


  • "Hell will hold no surprises for you."

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Devils  (1971)

    Metropolis  (1927)

    Bold, brutal, blasphemous, and utterly brilliant, Ken Russell's The Devils is easily one of the most unjustly overlooked films of its time, surely due in no small part to its limited availability.  Taking place in 1634, the film explores the unconscionable atrocities committed by the Catholic church in the seventeenth century, especially in regard to social and sexual politics.

    As Urbain Grandier, a French priest whose interpretation of the clergy allows for sexual daliance, Oliver Reed gives one of the most underrated performances of the '70s.  He is galvanizing: powerful, charismatic, and sympathetic.  Even his questionable actions and beliefs are rendered understandable, if not likable, by his charm and presence in the role.  "Saint Paul says that he who marries does a good thing," Grandier is admonished, "but he who remains chaste does something better," to which he simply responds, "Then I am content to do a good thing, and leave the best to those that can face it."

    Vanessa Redgrave, in one of her earlier performances, is also superb as Sister Jeanne, the head nun whose obsession with Grandier is the impetus for the rampant sexuality that overtakes the convent and, subsequently, the Cardinal's takeover of Loudon.  That hers is not the most memorable performance is not a criticism of her, but rather a compliment to the entire cast; rarely has Russell assembled a troupe of actors who get his twisted blend of history, satire, and surrealism as well as he has here.

    And what a unique blend it is.  The film is joyfully anachronistic, with sets admittedly modelled less after Victorian architecture than after Fritz Lang's Metropolis.  (And by Derek Jarman, no less.)  Russell's pageantry is not of the stuffy variety one usually expects of a period piece; instead, his brilliant screenplay comes to vivid life with the kind of absurd theatricality to which only 1971 could give birth.  Everything about the film is bold: its colors, its sets, its costumes, its performances, they all jump off of the screen with a brazen confidence that defies you to turn away, knowing well that you won't, in spite of your outrage at what you're seeing.

    This is marvelously subversive cinema, a film with ideas and the conviction to deliver them as fearlessly and as confrontationally as possible.  The Devils is less cautionary than A Clockwork Orange, less willfully obtuse than The Holy Mountain, and less obstinately grotesque than Salo or the 120 Days of Sodom; yet it stands easily alongside these classics and paints, along with them, a picture of a disquieted generation learned enough to understand its place within a greater context yet determined to fight oppression in all its forms.  If ever there was a film absolutely begging to be brought back into the spotlight by the Criterion Collection, The Devils is that film.


  • "The lord used you, brother."

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    There are many people who will find David Petersen's documentary Let the Church Say Amen inspiring.  I am not one of them.  This is not to say that there are not individuals portrayed in the film whose personal crusades are inspiring, but I am not of the school of thought that the benefits of religion -- specifically organized religion -- outweigh its detriments.

    The film follows the proprietors and congregants of the World Missions for Christ Church in Washington DC.  Battling poverty, hunger, drugs, violence, and mass dismissal by the affluent, these people fight a never ending crusade to help themselves and their brethren rise above their regrettable situation.  Many of these individuals have stories which are touching, but their militant theism is alienating.  It is not enough for Pastor Bobby Perkins and his brothers and sisters to help the destitute; all the good in the world it seems must be done by and for Jesus Christ.

    The old saw that "God helps those who help themselves," is possibly the greatest example of a pernicious, self fulfilling prophecy ever recorded and the most transparent proof of organized religion's gleeful appropriation of autarchic acts of altruism and chance; that theists will still use this expression unironically baffles me.  And this is what upsets me the most about institutions such as the World Missions for Christ Church.  Why must the benevolence of these groups be so rooted in religious fundamentalism?  I am of the opinion that organized religion -- and the concept of the afterlife, specifically -- developed as an empty solace for those who wondered, What is the point of this after we die?  Rather than embrace the temporal nature of life, and in doing so value every choice and every action that much more, so many of us prefer to believe that there is an eternal reward waiting for us on another plane.

    I could argue (as I have frequently to many people) that the question of an afterlife is irrelevant.  All of our knowledge comes through our physical experiences, experiences which are filtered through our five senses.  Without our physical bodies, we would experience the afterlife in ways we cannot even fathom now; we would be entirely different beings in an entirely different context with no relation to who we were before our death.  This seems self evident to me.  It also seems largely hypothetical, as I don't believe in an afterlife of any sort.  But regardless, I am still hard pressed to understand why so many people in our world need the hollow comfort of organized religion.  I am not one of those agnostics who will attack religion on all fronts; rather, I accept and appreciate the good that it does for those who live better lives for it.  What bothers me is the inability of those people to accept an objective, relativist view of life and act generously to their fellow men for reasons that are not self serving.  For ultimately, isn't all of this a little selfish?  Aren't we all just trying to secure ourselves a spot in heaven with the angels?  And escape eternal damnation and hellfire?

    I admittedly haven't said much about the film, which is a competent, if somewhat uneven documentary.  But when you're shouting at people with megaphones and singing "We're gonna kick the devil's butt!" with the fervent zeal of a man possessed by some unholy spirit, you can surely understand having a reaction more than a response.


  • Delivers On Its Premise and Its Hype

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Transformers  (2007)

    Cloverfield  (2008)

    I have unabashadly been looking forward to Cloverfield since I first saw the teaser at an advance screening of Transformers last summer.  Granted, very few hype films live up to their hype, and very few gimmick films work as well in practice as they do in theory.  Cloverfield, I am giddily pleased to announce, is an exception.  The film lives up to its hype and delivers on its premise; it is tense, emotionaly gripping, and mercifully free of the extraneous explanation of events that so frequently deflates movies of this sort.  In short?  It could be the perfect monster movie.

    The film is presented as a piece of declassified evidence from the files for "Cloverfield," the code name for the recent devastating attacks on Manhattan by a creature of unknown origin.  This piece of evidence is, more specifically, the contents of a camcorder's SD card recovered from the "former site of Central Park."  To the filmmakers' immense credit, there is no frame story.  There are no flashbacks or flashforwards (save for some cleverly executed and judiciously sprinkled bits of what the attacks were recorded over).  There is no explanation of where the monster came from, how far it got, or the specifics of how it was stopped.  Ignore everyone who criticizes this supposed "lack of resolution"; this is a monster movie wherein the monster is secondary.  Cloverfield is a film about people trying to survive a catastrophic event.  That event could be an earthquake, a flood, a terrorist attack -- it just so happens it's a monster.

    Also to the credit of producer J. J. Abrams, director Matt Reeves, and screenwriter Drew Goddard, there is humor in the film.  Not action movie one-liners or Corman-esque goofiness, but rather humor that stems from the characters and is entirely appropriate for the circumstances of the film.  (Most of which comes from primary cameraman Hud (T. J. Miller), who proves a most enjoyable guide through a series of increasingly unsettling events.)  Were this levity not present to occasionally difuse the tension of the film, audiences would be laughing inappropriately.  But Cloverfield rarely loses its audience, and only strains credulity during the few money shots of the monster, mainly due to the inherent unbelievability of CGI.

    Ultimately, it is only the lazy, reductive, simple-minded moviegoer who will watch Cloverfield and miss the craft with which it is constructed.  These are the viewers who watch movies based on James Patterson novels and pride themselves on being able to guess the "twist" in a movie before it happens, but well after it has been thoroughly telegraphed through a series of red herrings and vapid, expository dialogue.  Cloverfield is a visceral, thrilling film which takes a surprising number of risks in its execution, subverting the puerile and obtuse expectations of the genre which have become trite and cliche.  Say what you will about J. J. Abrams and his proclivity for hype and gimmickry, at least he trusts and respects his audience to appreciate something outisde and above the norm.


  • To The Academy: Educate, Don't Placate

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Casablanca  (1942)

    Spartacus  (1960)

    Gladiator  (2000)

    Crash  (2005)

    The Departed  (2006)

    Underdog  (2007)

    Juno  (2007)

    In the January 14th issue of Time, film critic Richard Corliss eschews reviewing the week's releases (it is January, after all) to instead pontificate on the state of the Oscars ("How to Save the Awards Shows").  As many are wont to do, Corliss offers his suggestion on how to improve the Oscars.  He throws out the notions usually bandied about in bids for cheap audience thrills, and suggests something that he considers self-evidently simple: give the awards to popular movies.

    Now, with all respect to Mr. Corliss, I agree that the Oscars don't have the finest track record for nominations, let alone for awards.  But if I may be granted my say, the problem with the list is that it usually slants too commercial.  Does anyone really think The Departed was the best picture of 2006?  Or Crash the best picture of 2005?  Or Million Dollar Baby the best picture of 2004?  Or... well, you get the idea.

    Granted, these are not bad films.  (Okay, Crash is a bad film.)  But they are populist films.  And whether or not they make as much money as unsophisticated comedies or franchises or sickeningly saccharine schmaltz is regardless.  These are films with big names both in front of and behind the camera, with money to spare on production and promotion.  By now, they even have a subgenre of their own: Oscar-bait.

    Corliss points out that "In the old days, the Best Picture prize went to box-office hits like Casablanca, The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Sound of Music."  Is anyone really going to debate that Casablanca and The Bridge on the River Kwai are classics in all senses of the word?  (Let's not debate The Sound of Music; as far as I'm concerned, that's one of the most erroneous awards the Academy has ever given.  But I digress.)  There's a difference between saying Gladiator is in the spirit of Spartacus and saying that Gladiator is as good as Spartacus.  There's an intelligence, a tastefulness, and an artistic merit in a