New Weekly Discussion Theme
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Tour Spout | Sign up
Find movies you'll love

BigJeffLebowski Blog

  • "We've all got stuff in our past that wasn't too clever."

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

    Separate Lies  (2005)

    Expanding upon his usual theme of deception among the British upper class, Julian Fellowes's directorial debut Separate Lies is a film with enough intelligence and insight to make up for its few technical and structural deficiencies.

     

    Tom Wilkinson and Emily Watson give strong performances as James and Anne Manning, a couple who have let the silences in their marriage overtake their passion.  James is an esteemed London solicitor ("He's very expensive," Anne condescendingly tells a friend who asks if James is good at his job) who has let reason and pragmatism bleed from his professional life to his personal life.  Anne, frustrated and exhausted from the standards to which James (perhaps unknowingly) holds her, begins an affair with Bill (Rupert Everett), a well-to-do friend of the family who has recently returned from a stay in New York.  Their romance entangles them legally as well as emotionally when the husband of the Manning's maid is injured by a passing car, a hit and run whose investigation calls upon all three as witnesses.

     

    The film, adapted as well as directed by Fellowes, finds occasional moments of domestic tumult which shatter the Mannings' precarious tranquility with surprisingly strong effect; one scene in particular makes food preparation more suspenseful than I had ever thought possible, climaxing with a plate shattering with such resonance that the world outside could explode without the Mannings -- or the audience -- so much as flinching.  That Fellowes is able to wring such intensity from these tiny moments makes the film's failings that much more upsetting.  What I assume are meant to be revelations occur so early in the film that they play more as plot developments than as twists, robbing them of some of their impact.  And by the last 20 minutes of the film, months and years pass so quickly that Fellowes resorts to telling the passage of time in voice over.

     

    Still, the film contains a wealth of the dark, dry British humor for which Fellowes is renowned.  Take for instance the scene in which an argument about Bill's role in the hit and run leads to Anne's admission of infidelity:

     

    "F*** Bill."

    "That's the thing.  I do f*** Bill."

     

    Even more enjoyable, however, is how the psychological and social dynamic of infidelity is illustrated.  James, of course, appears at first as the more noble of the two, but his skills as a solicitor reveal themselves in several scenes in which his careful navigation of marital spats leads his wife to suggest the actions she would likely dismiss were they proposed by James.  "You said it yourself," he adds afterwards as an aloof rejoinder.  It takes her a while, but Anne does realize her deceptions are being met blow for blow by James'  machinations.  "I fail every test you set me," she tells him, "yet you keep setting them.  Why?"

     

    But James's journey is the most interesting aspect of the film, as he rediscovers his love for Anne and, rather than snipe at her, takes the moral high ground and offers his support of her choices.  His pragmatism allows him to see every situation from several viewpoints, and his harsh judgment of Anne cannot help but make him reevaluate himself.  "We're all wreckers," he concedes at one point, "we make choices, we make them for the best and most loving reasons, but we don't see the damage we cause."  It is lucky for the characters of Separate Lies that they learn the damages they have caused before it is too late for them to mend appearances and salvage their lives as well as their dignity.


  • A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man

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


    “I am able to have sex with any beautiful woman I want just because I am so great.”  In many ways -- many more than are readily apparent -- the film Art School Confidential is about this conceit and the myriad manifestations of its basic ethos.  It is uttered early in the film by a precocious, impressionable boy named Jerome, standing before his elementary school classmates, dressed as Pablo Picasso; the ability to speak it of himself as well as of his hero will become his life goal.

    Accepted to Strathmore, a small East Coast art school, Jerome (played now in post-adolescence by Max Minghella) arrives armed with a passion for his craft and the naïve wide-eyed idealism to pursue it past the point of reason.  But like the barefoot hippie girl whose first step out of the safety of her parents’ car is onto a broken beer bottle on the campus entrance, his dreams will be tested and trampled before the end of the first semester.

    Aware and proud of his skills, Jerome expects praise to meet his efforts from the start.  Unfazed by the cynical tirades of his disinterested professor “Sandy” Sandiford (John Malkovich), he triumphantly displays his first assignment at the front of the room, awaiting the accolades of which is undoubtedly deserving; when his self portrait is met apathetically, he is incredulous.  He dismisses the work of his fellow students as inept (which it is), and is immediately attacked by his classmates who defend a canvas of scribbles and lines for its “humanity.”  He makes only one friend, Bardo (Joel David Moore), a slacker dilettante of the highest order who has made a veritable career of dropping out of college only to re-enroll one semester later under a different concentration.  He takes perverse pleasure in pointing out how every freshman can be codified to some form of cliché.  Which, of course, makes him just another collegiate cliché himself, but that’s okay because he recognizes it.  (He neglects to mention that such pseudo-self-awareness makes him still another cliché, but I digress.)  That Bardo can’t pigeonhole him (“I haven’t got you figured out yet,”) should be the greatest compliment Jerome’s ever received.

    Jerome’s focus is elsewhere, though, having recently become enamored of Audrey (Sophia Myles), the beautiful daughter of a celebrated pop artist who models for the Strathmore art classes.  Audrey floats about the campus and the surrounding art scene, self-assured and aloof, rarely stopping, settling, or committing to any one person, place, or activity.  Even as a model for Jerome’s class, she itches to free herself of abeyance, anxiously asking Sandy if the class can break so she can have a cigarette.  That her attentions are so ephemeral only makes Jerome long for them more ardently.  When her affection later turns from Jerome to Jonah (Matt Keeslar), another student in Sandy’s class, he is incensed.  His choler would likely be little more than a passing displeasure if not for Jonah’s paintings; sparse, awkwardly locked into a two-dimensional and literal interpretation of their subjects, and with no sense of color or composition, Jonah’s work inexplicably wins the approval of his professor and his classmates, who celebrate his ability to “unlearn the rules of art.”  For Jerome, this is the opening shot in a war, the spoils of which include both Audrey and the gallery show awarded to the student with the highest mark at the end of the semester.

    Desperate to win both the girl and the gallery, and following Sandy’s throwaway advice too religiously and too superficially, Jerome attempts nearly every artistic style practiced by his classmates, but the bid for acceptance only results in harsher criticism.  Stripped of his dignity, his passion, and his faith in both love and art, Jerome decides to take drastic steps to ensure his final project is the best in the class.  Jimmy (a brilliant Jim Broadbent), a local hermitic drunk, takes a liking to Jerome.  Formerly a student at Strathmore, Jimmy has grown antisocial and cynical, spending his days painting surreptitiously in his apartment, entertaining company only when they buy their way into his good graces with booze, and “postponing suicide for the slim chance that you might one day possibly see some glorious plague or pestilence bring horrible suffering to your hateful species.”  His colorful rants about the politics of the art world, which once struck Jerome as crass and misanthropic, now resound with overwhelming truth.  Disgusted by himself as much as he is by mankind in general, Jimmy agrees to let Jerome present his paintings as Jerome’s own work, an act which will ultimately incriminate Jerome in an ongoing murder investigation.

    When Jerome, as Picasso, says at the beginning of the film “I am able to have sex with any beautiful woman I want,” it is an afterthought, an added bonus that bears mentioning.  Yes, he wants adulation, he wants fame, and he wants to reap the rewards of being a highly respected and successful artist, but more importantly, he wants to be worthy of these things.  His art may be a means to this end, but there is no denying his talent or the passion with which he pursues the craft itself.  His work is a representation of how he sees the world, and as such, his portraiture is more personal and more self-revealing than any of the abstract “message” art created by the other students in his class.  As Audrey astutely observes, Jerome’s portrait of her bears a striking similarity to a portrait she has seen of one of Picasso’s models.  It is telling that Jerome strives for the adoration of “any woman” he wants rather than “all the women” he wants; he seeks a muse as much as he desires a romantic interest, and believes he has found both in Audrey -- believes, in fact, that the two are practically inseparable from one another.  For Jerome, asking if a woman is the impetus for his art or if he creates art to attract a woman is akin to asking which came first, the chicken or the egg.

    Patrick Suskind writes, “The price paid for love is always the loss of reason, abandonment of the self,” and true to this notion, it is when Jerome’s passion for Audrey -- or more accurately for what Audrey represents -- overwhelms his passion for art and for creativity that he stumbles.  Every time Jerome paints in a different style, he is trying on a new personality, hoping that one will fit just as well as, if not better than, the one with which he has thus far arrayed himself.  He begins to lose his identity, focusing increasingly on his goal and less on the path which will take him there.

    John Chamberlain says at one point in Who Gets to Call it Art? that “artists aren’t really acceptable in general terms to the public.”  That film, Peter Rosen's documentary about Metropolitan Museum of Art curator Henry Geldzahler, is a testament to the creative spirit and the struggle for acceptance and understanding.  The true artist -- as the cliché often goes -- is someone who suffers, who feels more deeply, and who lacks the capacity to express himself in more commonplace terms.

    When, in Art School Confidential, a female student criticizes another Strathmore professor (Anjelica Huston) for the abundance of “dead, white, male” artists discussed in class (a criticism also made of Geldzahler’s selections), a male student comes to the professor’s defense.  Most artists are aesthetically inferior, he notes, and for them, their work is the only tool they have in attracting women and advancing socially; they come to define themselves through their work and the paintings themselves become their identity.  In this respect sincerity and integrity are absolutely essential to the artist, not only for the quality of his work but also for the quality of his life.  Even when a former Strathmore student who has recently acquired a certain degree of celebrity is derided for his brash, aberrant demeanor, Jerome can’t help but respect him and what he stands for.  “I’m an asshole because I’m an asshole,” he states simply, just as we all are; that he’s acclaimed and publicly celebrated gives him the freedom to be so, without the usual concession to social niceties.

    Throughout the film’s final act, screenwriter Daniel Clowes and director Terry Zwigoff assert their belief that honesty, passion, and sincerity will outlast a superficial allegiance to any trend or deception.  Great artists are rarely appreciated in their own time because it is only after the lesser practitioners have faded into obscurity and disappeared with the fads which spawned and nurtured them that the general public is able to acknowledge and embrace the universality that paradoxically springs from an artist’s unyielding devotion to his own individuality.  There are those who will watch this film, confused by the eccentricities of its characters, put off by its tonal shift in the third act, and dismissive of what they will consider a wildly unbelievable ending; for those who still have faith in the power of art to surmount the hypocrisy, posturing, and cynicism which too often try to drag it down, the final frames will damn near bring you to tears.

  • A film unsure of itself

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

    The Quiet  (2005)

    I'm not sure if someone should have told director Jamie Babbit to lighten up or told co-screenwriters Abdi Nazemian and Micah Schraft to start taking themselves seriously.  Whichever it may be, at some point in the production of the curiously confused The Quiet, all three should have gotten onto the same page.  This is not to say it is a bad film -- it actually succeeds fairly well in spite of itself -- but there is a strong sense of a director and cast trying desperately to raise their script from camp to gravitas which ultimately makes The Quiet feel disjointed with several too many unintentional laughs.

     

    The Disfunction Lurking Beneath the Idyllic Suburban Facade film is a genre unto itself, and Nazemian and Schraft's script does little to shroud or surpass its cliches and limitations.  Instead, it makes several sloppy attempts at metaphor and similitude.  The two girls, for instance, share a desire to be closer to their fathers which most likely stems from the absence of a mother.  While Dot's died when Dot was only seven, Nina's becomes increasingly soporific thanks to a worsening drug dependency begun while she was recovering from an unexplained injury.  As the film goes on, these desires lead both girls to act abnormally in ways ranging from bizarre to depraved.

     

    It's this longing for both physical and emotional connection -- and the inability to express it satisfactorily -- which drives not only the two female protagonists, but also all the ancillary characters.  Nina's best friend Michelle prattles endlessly about screwing Connor, the high school basketball star, while meanwhile, in unguarded moments, she timidly attempts to breach the subject of her attraction to Nina and her repressed lesbianism.  Connor on the other hand, frustrated by not only his ADD and his virginity but also by an attraction to Dot which even he seems to find inconceivable, unfurls a seemingly endless supply of unflattering and off-putting admissions under the belief that she cannot hear him (and therefore cannot criticize him).  All the while, Nina the Bitch begins to collapse under her own weight, giving Nina the Abused Victim fleeting chances to make herself known.

     

    Oh yeah, there's also some nonsense about Beethoven.  You know, cause he was deaf too.

     

    What brings it all together in the end are the pair of surprisingly strong performances by Elisha Cuthbert and Camilla Belle.  While Martin Donovan and Edie Falco seem strangely misguided, Cuthbert and Belle have a pretty thorough understanding of their characters.  Cuthbert is rarely used as more than a pretty face on a prettier body, but aside from a few moments of maudlin melodrama, her Nina is surprisingly convincing.  Her ability to jump immediately from insubordination to adulation to affliction and back again is in itself revelatory for an actress usually asked to play one note to its fullest; even more impressive is the way she never lets it seem schizophrenic, but instead perfectly intimates the fleeting, disinterested whims of a teenager.

     

    Belle, on the other hand, is an actress more adept at emoting through gesture and expression than through voice, and at the risk of making it sound like a diminutive compliment, the role of Dot is perfectly suited to her skills.  There is a stillness to her performance, yes, but not vacancy.  Belle has the enviable ability to convey thought on the screen, and you can see it in every glance, in every pause.  Though her character wishes to be invisible to the world, Belle demands your attention.  Her sporadic narration tells you what has happened to her, but her sloping eyes -- a dark, striking mix of sadness and determination that I defy you to look away from -- tell you how those events have affected her.  Simply put, hers is the kind of face for which close-ups were invented.

     

    But ultimately, the contrivances of the film become too numerous and the half-hearted attempts at satire get in the way of what could have been a fairly engaging psychological thriller.  Babbit controls the mood of the film admirably, but she is easy on her writers; if she had pressed them to round out their characters and sketch out the film's subplots and subtext more fully, The Quiet could have been a real under-the-radar surprise.  Instead, it remains a curious oddity with too many goals and the wrong means for achieving them.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<February 2007>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728123
45678910


Categories
 


Advertisement