jjgittes Blog

Under discussion:

Code 46  (2004)

Although I'm not sure CODE 46 qualifies as an indie, it is a really well-made, interesting film and one of the better Reel 13 "Indies" that have aired so far. It is also a welcome departure for director Michael Winterbottom who otherwise seems to specialize in more politically-minded fare (WELCOME TO SARAJEVO, ROAD TO GUANTANAMO, A MIGHTY HEART). With this film, not only does he veer into sci-fi territory, but he also displays the filmmaking skills that shows why many thought he had so much promise in the first place. Those skills used with this less-didactic narrative proved to be terrifically effective.

In Giuliana Bruno's famous essay, "Ramble City: Postmodernism and Blade Runner", she defines postmodernism as a combination of pastiche and schizophrenia (I'm simplifying her explanation a great deal for the sake of this brevity). Though not based on Philip K. Dick in any way, the many great details within the future imagined by Winterbottom and company fits perfectly into this definition. The architecture in BLADE RUNNER, with its classical, almost Gothic approach within its dystopic futuristic world, is probably the most apparent element of pastiche. For CODE 46, it is the language as almost all the characters speak a combination of Chinese, French, Spanish and English, suggesting that in the very near future, the world gets even smaller and cultures are in fact, combined (In BLADE RUNNER, the lower class in LA speaks a mish-mash of Japanese, German and English – in keeping with the film's post-industrialist themes). Instead of going old-school with the architecture a la BLADE RUNNER, the locations/sets in CODE 46 actually look modern (as opposed to futuristic) making the world of CODE 46 feel like a very palpable future (would that be a post-postmodernist concept?).

The schizophrenic element starts with the two lead characters, played by Tim Robbins and Samantha Morton. Robbins qualifies in the sense that he lives two distinct lives – the one in the US with his family and the other in Beijing with Morton and for Morton, she is both a worker and a thief and is also sort of a mixed race-type being the offspring of one parent from the "inside" and the other from the "outside". Though what makes someone banished from the "inside" isn't always clear, the very idea that the world has been essentially divided into two sections – the "inside" and the "outside" is, in and of itself, a schizophrenic quality.

Now that we've examined the level of sci-fi sophistication within the new world of CODE 46 and its place amongst other postmodernist works, it's time to delve into what makes it a good film itself. Firstly, as I suggested earlier, Winterbottom is at the top of his game. The camerawork and angles are outstanding throughout (there is an particularly awesome shot of the reflection of Tim Robbins in Morton's eye). Winterbottom also occasionally utilizes POV angles, which are very effective, especially since they are justified by the way that people's memories seem to be able to be recorded and played back, in lieu of photographs or videocameras. It's unfortunate that Channel 13 presented a version that got panned and scanned because a visual, widescreen film like CODE 46 definitely suffers as a result.

I'm not sure why CODE 46 didn't have a significant impact when it first came out. It's a really intelligent, thought-out script that not only borrows from postmodern science fiction, but also wisely revises the genre to fit its own purpose. As I mentioned, the cinematography, direction and production design are all exceptional, only adding detail and nuance to the already strong and interesting narrative. Perhaps this airing on Reel 13 will allow some to reevaluate CODE 46 and help put it in its rightful place among the strong cerebral sci-fi films of the last twenty-five years.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, visit www.reel13.org)

Under discussion:

The Big Country  (1958)

THE BIG COUNTRY, this week's Reel 13 Classic, is another one of those films that I never had the chance to see and seems to have slipped under the radar of cinema history. However, although it's long and has some hiccups along the way, I found it be an extremely enjoyable film – interesting, thorough, detailed and impactful.

I don't know why I was so surprised with such a top-tier cast (Gregory Peck, Jean Simmons, Charlton Heston, Carroll Baker and Burl Ives) and William Wyler (BEN HUR, FUNNY GIRL) – one of the best old-school Hollywood-style filmmakers – at the helm. In the THE BIG COUNTRY, Wyler is most effective when he builds tension. He does an outstanding job of showing both sides of a feud between two Texas ranch families and in doing so, simultaneously vilifies and commends the characters on either side of the struggle. No character is wholly evil or without blame. Though not an overriding theme of the film (like say John Woo films or something of that ilk), this idea of the duality of man is what drives THE BIG COUNTRY in the sense that you understand the actions – both good and bad - of the characters on either side and as a result, you are emotionally engaged in what transpires. Additionally, because nothing is black and white and you are never sure who the hero is, it is always unclear who is going to come out on top, which naturally makes for an exciting ride.

One way the film accomplishes this is by telling the story through the eyes of the town newcomer - Jim McKay, played by the ever-noble and as a result, one-dimensional Peck (his righteousness is mostly out of place in the film since everyone else is so layered). He and the local schoolmarm Julie are caught in the middle of the feud and attempt to bring peace between the ranches. Simmons, making her record 4th appearance on Reel 13 this year, is as reliably wonderful as ever. She is beautiful, graceful, strong and extremely subtle as romance slowly and unexpectedly creeps into her life. The other female in the film is the gorgeous Actors Studio alum Carroll Baker – a fine actress of the era that time seems to have forgotten. She gives another outstanding performance (her masterpiece is 1956's BABY DOLL, from a script by Tennessee Williams), offering a portrait of the thin line between love and hate, compassion and greed. As good as the women are though, the performance of the movie belongs to Burl Ives, who won a Supporting Actor Oscar for his efforts. He manages to take disparate elements like vindictiveness and fairness or pride and understanding and believably weave them into one human being. He is often frightening, but at the same time, draws the viewer in. The pain and frustration that has made him (seem) bad is palpable and I often found myself sympathizing with the film's supposed villain.

I mentioned earlier that the film had a few "hiccups" along the way and one of them was Charlton Heston. Although his character, as written, has one of the best character arcs of the film, Heston, who is not known as one of our better actors, brings little to the role. He's just not very believable. Also, as good as Wyler is, he makes some odd choices that are minor issues in the film. For example, he frequently uses super wide vista shots, which is fine in theory, particularly for establishing and geography purposes, but Wyler uses them at odd times, in the middle of action or fight scenes. The problem with this is that the only information in the shots are really just the countryside itself (perhaps Wyler took the title very literally). The people engaged in the action are like ants in the shot and it becomes impossible to discern what's going on. The best example is the fistfight between Heston and Peck. The first time he cuts to the wide during the fight is interesting – almost as if suggesting how small their squabble is in the grand scheme of things, but then he inexplicably decides to play out most of the fight in that wide shot where you can't tell which character is which. It's a bit of a disappointment, but it's the hardly the only time in the film where Wyler chooses to go that wide and the shots never seem to have the impact that I think he wanted them to.

Perhaps what resonated most for me from THE BIG COUNTRY was its apparent politically allegorical elements. The film was made in 1958, which is kind of early for Cold War moralizing (most 50's films the alluded to Russia promoted fear of the other country; it wasn't until the early 60's that films started to suggest that we all try to get along). So, I'm not sure what the allegory would have been at the time, but it's amazingly a prescient cautionary tale. The final act is practically a Kreskinian prediction of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which would come to pass four years later. Even more amazing is how THE BIG COUNTRY can also be applied to modern global politics. Substitute oil for cattle and the story seems eerily familiar. That just goes to show the universal nature of this complex and layered film. Its themes are timeless and while it never really gets overly preachy, there are many lessons to be gleaned from the piece. Combine that with some well-drawn characters and you have the making of a truly outstanding film.

Under discussion:

Big  (1988)

I got on my soapbox last week about Reel 13 Classics airing films from the 80's, so I'll spare you that this time and focus on the film itself. If BIG is considered to be a successful film and a "classic", it is so because of one reason – the charm and performance of Tom Hanks. Nothing else about the film is very resonant or appealing, but Hanks is good enough to almost hypnotize an audience to ignore or forget about its flaws.

The film doesn't really get started until Hanks appears as a child who wakes up one morning as an adult (but with the mind of a child). You get the sense that director Penny Marshall knew this as well. She wastes no time getting the film to the change (the first act is only ten minutes long). There is very little exposition about the main character of Josh and his need to be "big" is flimsy, at best (my guess is that much of this was discarded in the editing room). Once Hanks is at the center of things, the film chooses to focus on him being funny and getting in funny, cute situations (What if an adult kid gets a job? What if an adult kid meets a girl?). All this ignores the fact that his parents think he's been kidnapped (more needed to be done with this) and the idea that a carnival machine can transform a kid overnight into an adult. Pushing these factors to the side in favor of Hanks shtick as the film does is the equivalent of tap dancing to get people not to look at the burning building behind them.

All that I've written so far suggests that I heartily dislike BIG, which actually isn't the case. It IS kind of charming and THAT is entirely due to Hanks. The plot is contrived and the other actors are hardly as successful (the usually reliable John Heard is overly smarmy here, Robert Loggia's character is underdeveloped and love interest Elizabeth Perkins is wholly unappealing) and yet, Hanks makes it work. I can't say enough about his thoroughly detailed performance (he did receive an Oscar nomination for his efforts, but lost to Dustin Hoffman in RAIN MAN). Every choice he makes is spot-on and the way he uses his body language to further the illusion that he is a child inside the body of an adult man is wonderfully amazing. It's a master class in screen acting that should be studied by young thespians for years to come. If only the script were better…