kristen Blog

Under discussion:

Changeling  (2008)

            Clint Eastwood characters are like Sarah Palin saying repeatedly in the vice presidential debate that we need to stop the greed and corruption on Wall Street. What she says is correct but one gets the feeling that she has no sophisticated understanding of the matter and no plan of attack (she lacks abstract thought). She correctly identifies an evil but simplifies it to a sound bite. In the same manner, Clint Eastwood portrays the corrupt LAPD as evil (which they may very well be) but reduces humans to flat charactures. Clint Eastwood in his simplistic manner says that the police force is corrupt and that we need to stop them. Is the matter really so black and white? Do all the people on the police force really have no soul? Is every action an act of pure evil? People and evil are more complex then Eastwood’s conception. This is an oversight that is an injustice to people and to evil. The rest of the movie follows this simplicity but does manage to have a few worthwhile moments.

Changeling first establishes how much Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) loves her son. When her son mysteriously disappears, Christine suffers injustice after injustice. First the corrupt LAPD deliver the wrong son. When she goes public with the news, pure evil Captain J. J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan) throws her into a mental institution to shut her up. Next come the shocking details of the child murderer in order to manipulate the audience to feel further sympathy. There is a turn of events thanks to Rev. Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich). Christine and the Reverend proceed to right all the injustice. They expel the corrupt police force. They liberate the women in the mental hospital (who are wrongfully there because of the more police cruelty). They see that the child murderer receives the death penalty. And they continue to search for her lost son. To be sure, Christine never shy’s away from her responsibility (a running theme in the movie).

The one mature decision Clint Eastwood makes during the movie (that is to say a non-manipulative, unexpected move that helps the story) comes when Christine visits the child murderer Gordon Northcott (Jason Butler Harner) the day before his execution. Everyone expects the murderer to admit that he killed Walter so that Christine can have some closure in her life. When he doesn’t tell her in the interview everyone expects him to shout it from the platform seconds before his hanging. Instead he takes his secret to the grave. This silence fits the character and allows the movie to continue because though unresolved, Christine now has hope.

Harner gives a great performance. As a villain he manages to be creepy but almost too mentally off to hate. In his own strange way he is charming (even though we saw him viciously hacking child to death). He has a strange innocence even in his guilt.

By the second half of the movie, I had such low expectations that any ending other than Walter Collins (Christine’s son) running into his mother’s arms in slow motion would be appreciated. I think I can say safely that most people expect this saccharine ending, which makes the way Eastwood actually ends the movie quite clever. It’s not a good ending, it’s a Hollywood ending but it does enough so that critics don’t turn their heads and moan and it gives the general audience the sweetness they desire. It also preserves some mystery about the case, gives Christine hope, and at least paints Walter Collins as a hero (someone Christine can be proud of). The end delivers the expectations while preserving tragedy. This ending shows a great understanding of audience and critics. Eastwood knows how to play the game. This understanding of the politics of filmmaking and his wonderful personality are (what I believe) the reason for his acclaim (aside from his one great movie Unforgiven where he rightfully deserves praise). 

Under discussion:

Forgetting Sarah Marshall  (2008)

           To my dismay, Forgetting Sarah Marshall beings with all the college student movies clichés. A boy comically brushes his teeth in the mirror. Then he grabs a whole box of cereal and eats it in his grossly decorated apartment. The montage of lazy, filthy boy continues. We see him in sweat pants flopping from one lazy position on the couch to another. He tries to exercise but can’t find the motivation. Then his lovely girlfriend calls and says she’ll be home early. Boy must clean the house.

           When Sarah Marshall arrives Peter steps out of the shower completely naked to greet her only to realize that she is breaking up with him. Instead of being awkward and vulnerable comedy, the scene drowns in insincerity. Every real moment is traded for the laugh. The director seems to celebrate his cleverness yet at every step falls flat to cheap jokes.

           I almost walked out of the theater. Fortunately, the movie gets a lot better. Peter tries to escape his misery by going on vacation to a lovely spot that Sarah and he frequently talked about in Hawaii. Only it turns out that Sarah had the same idea. To his horror, Sarah is at the same hotel with her flippant pop singer boyfriend Aldous Snow- a recipe for cheap jokes. For example, Peter stalks them back to their room and interrupts their kiss. He tells his stepbrother on the phone that he thinks her ruined Sarah’s day. Cut to Sarah having orgasmic sex with Aldous. There are jokes about Peter sobbing in his suite like an old woman, jokes where Peter has to sit at a table looking at Sarah, jokes about Peter drinking all the time.

           Only when the movie stops the cheap jokes and relies on sincere drama does it work. Peter meets a wonderful girl named Rachel who seems to be the perfect girl. But the movie understands what it is like to get over an ex. It takes time, even if you meet someone else. Rachel does help Peter to have fun, but when Peter sees Sarah again, he cries. Sarah then begins to realize how great Peter was only when Rachel threatens to take him away. These are the remnants of a real relationship. Sarah realizes that her pop-star boyfriend is not as special as Peter. Peter realizes that Sarah was great but maybe she didn’t always understand him.

           There are some fantastic moments. When Sarah’s TV show is canceled Aldous cannot understand her fear about the future. Peter walks by Sarah and recognizes her pain. Peter is able to comfort her, a reminder of the relationship they once had. At another point, Sarah confesses to Rachel how pretty Rachel is. This shows both jealousy and real respect for Rachel as a person who is able to help her ex in his time of need. At an awkward dinner where Sarah accepts a courteous invitation to dine with Rachel and Peter, Peter and Aldous bond over laughing at Sarah’s ridiculous role in a movie (where cell-phones kill people). Rachel seems to bond with Sarah, respecting her role as a movie star. While surfing, Aldous comes up to Peter and gives him a respectful compliment about his music. Peter is grateful and feels that Aldous really understood what he was trying to do with his music. At another point, Sarah confesses how hard she tried to make the relationship work, but that Peter was too lazy to notice. This is the first point where he seems to understand what went wrong.

           The movie evolves into a pretty realistic look at break-ups, the struggles with getting over a past love. It is clear that the relationship is over for these two, but that in no way means it is easy. The rebound relationships aren’t perfect. Peter has to evolve before he can make things work with Rachel, who genuinely seems a perfect match.

           The comedy does not work for the most part. The Dracula musical seems to rely on a Dracula musical with puppets being inherently funny. No thought or effort is put in to developing the joke. The movie works best with its realistic depiction of relationships and breakups and fortunately there are a few funny moments that make this entertaining. I was pleasantly surprised with the way the movie turned out.

~Kristen Gorlitz

Under discussion:

Gallipoli  (1981)

A better runner film than Gallipoli (1981) is Hugh Hudson’s Chariots of Fire (1981). A better male bonding film is Howard Hawk’s Rio Bravo (1959). A better historical representation film is Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987) But as a fantasy film, Peter Weir’s Gallipoli (1981) works with a grace unique unto itself.

            Archy, Mark Lee, trains hard to be the fastest runner. Gallipoli (1981) does not explore this passion for running as in Chariots of Fire (1981). Running may be a way for Archy to advance in life. However, the film implies that his uncle Jack may like the fact that Archy runs more than Archy does. Archy tells Jack that there is more to life than racing. The film does not explore the dynamics of the sport, or introduce intense passion to win a race.

Instead, the fact that Archy is a runner serves as a base for a friendship with Frank Dunn, played by Mel Gibson.  In the first organized race of the film, Archy defeats the cocky Frank Dunn, played by Mel Gibson. The two have talent, and their athletic inclinations allow for nonsexual male bonding. Frank and Archy wander in the desert, uncivilized like the cowboys of the west, though their comradery is not as profound as iconic cowboy John Wayne and his partners in Rio Bravo (1959). The bond does not make a deep impression because Archy and Frank are flat characters.

We learn background information on Frank. The British murder his mother and that is why he opposes the war. Yet, Frank remains the lovable rebel for the duration of the film. He has his adventures (he hops a train), his fun (he sleeps with a prostitute), and his problems (he has no money). Frank is good deep down, and Archy sees that. Archy is an optimist and always in good spirits. He is naïve for he devotes himself fully to the war without thinking of the horrors it brings. Archy is too good to be interesting. He risks his life for Frank by refusing a safe position. Frank may have a loose morality, but he would never harm anyone. The two go from a time of joy, to a time of despair in war, yet their outlooks do not change. It seems that the death that surrounds them has no effect. To the fault of the film, the characters are static to an ever-dynamic backdrop.

The Australians remember the Battle of Gallipoli as a major controversial historical event in a way comparable to how Americans remember Vietnam as controversial (“Battle at Gallipoli”). The movie Gallipoli (1981) is a fictionalized account of this battle in World War I (Thompson and Bordwell pp 664). The problem with Gallipoli (1981) as a historical piece is that it spends so much exposition on Archy and Frank (fictional characters) and only leaves ten or so minutes for the battle to take place. The film so loosely bases the story on the battle that the battle becomes irrelevant. Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket (1987) fictionalizes the Vietnam War with sets and characters, yet captures the controversy of the war. The Vietnam War is an indispensable part of Full Metal Jacket (1987).

Gallipoli (1981) does stand out in one aspect, and that is its 80’s synthesizer-pop score. The synth-pop music initiates when there is a race. This music is so jarring that it takes one out of the atmosphere of the film and places one in a science fiction- fantasy world. Since the characters are flat, the absurd music does a wonder to ruin any gravity that Gallipoli (1981) tries to establish. Three times the film transports us to a world beyond our understanding. The music leaves a more memorable impression than any other aspect, which is why this is such a good fantasy movie. The world is beyond what we would expect, but we like it all the same.

~Kristen Gorlitz