minerwerks Blog

Under discussion:

Private Parts  (1997)

Talk to Me  (2007)

I am not really a fan of biopics. In most of the ones I've seen, time is a distraction from the drama, mostly because the film endeavors to make use of a great amount of material in a short format. But in the hands of talented writers and filmmakers, biopics can rise above by having purpose - a reason to exist beyond telling the story of some recognizable figure. 'Talk to Me' is one of those films. Being only "inspired by a true story," there is some dramatic license at work here.

This take on the story exists as a relationship drama between Petey Greene (Don Cheadle) and Dewey Hughes (Chiwetel Ejiofor). Dewey works for a Washington D.C. R&B station struggling to keep up with the times. Petey has been serving time in prison, but has found his calling as a disc jockey, "telling it like it is" to the prison crowds between records. Freshly sprung from jail, Petey scoops up his girlfriend (Taraji P. Henson) and barges into the radio station looking for a job. For a brief period, the film plays like a variation on the Howard Stern film, 'Private Parts,' but Greene's battles against authority carry much more weight, as they come across as a struggle to put a voice to the disenfranchised audience.

But the meat of the film involves Greene's rise to prominence and how his relationship with Hughes changes. Instead of being singularly concerned with telling Petey Greene's story, the drama is structured around the friendship between Petey and Dewey. This begins to take the film down a sentimental road in the final moments, but for the majority of the time, the story is smartly built on the idea that these two men have a distinct need for each other that blossoms into friendship.

At the center of the film are two fine performances by Cheadle and Ejiofor. On one hand, Cheadle has never had such a great showcase to be outrageous, but Greene is also a nuanced, flawed figure. Ejiofor is similarly gifted for nuance, infusing his Dewey with intelligence and vulnerability. The film's supporting cast is pretty strong as well. Henson's role as Greene's loyal girlfriend is flashy and fun, but ultimately pivotal to the story. Martin Sheen brings a lot of authority in his role as the station's manager, but it calls for different shades perhaps once or twice in the whole film. Cedric the Entertainer is, well, rather entertaining in a small role as another of the station's show hosts. The soundtrack is yet another notable supporting player, with dozens of classic R&B tunes that (pardon the cliche) had my toes tapping in the aisles.

It's interesting to note that the film does a solid job as a period piece, effectively mixing vintage and recreated news footage in some cases. One scene presents a fascinating recreation of a James Brown live performance from the late '60s. The film also includes one scene that I'm a total sucker for - they recreate a broadcast of 'The Tonight Show' using video footage of an actual program and having actors appear in the out-of-focus background, giving the impression it's actually happening. But all the period bells and whistles are merely in service of the "true story" aspects of the film. The heart of the story - the relationships - could be transposed to present day and be no less effective.

Under discussion:

The Conversation  (1974)

The Godfather Part II  (1974)

The Great Gatsby  (1974)

Indecent Proposal  (1993)

I first considered myself at a disadvantage to comment upon a filmed version of 'The Great Gatsby,' being that I hadn't read the book for years, and even then, I really wasn't old or experienced enough to really appreciate it. But this is instead the best way to approach a film adaptation of a novel - if you have no prejudices based on another incarnation, you can be free to interpret the material fresh.

I last saw the 1974 film version of 'The Great Gatsby' at the same time I read the novel - roughly 15 years ago when I was in high school. At that time, I can't remember the film making much impression on me, other than seeing a parallel to the character Robert Redford played in 'Indecent Proposal.' Today, it's hard to believe this film came out in the midst one of Hollywood's greatest periods. I was surprised to see Francis Ford Coppola credited as the screenwriter. This film was released, in fact, the same year that Coppola's masterpieces 'The Godfather Part II' and 'The Conversation' were released. Actually comparing 'The Conversation' to 'The Great Gatsby,' the two films seem to come from completely different eras of filmmaking.

The story is told through the eyes of Nick Carraway (Sam Waterston), who lives in a modest Long Island home next door to the mysterious Gatsby (Robert Redford), who it turns out carries a torch for Nick's cousin Daisy (Mia Farrow). The tale eventually turns to tragedy worthy of Shakespeare, though as it plays out in this film version, it feels contrived. The biggest sabotage to this film is putting too much emphasis on the Daisy-Gatsby romance, carried on with much gauzy, soft-focus photography and sappy music. I'm not sure what audiences thought of this stuff in the '70s, but I know it's laughable to modern audiences (ask any of the hundreds of people who showed up to Tampa Theatre this past weekend). The spends a lot of time building up the characters coming together, then revels in their time together, neglecting the thematic reasons it all happens. The romance is its own end.

A lot of the film feels as if it were directed for the stage. Some performances (particularly Farrow's) are ridiculously over-the-top, as if the actors were trying to make their presence felt in the rafters. In scenes that involve more than dialogue, the film is hobbled by perfunctory staging and editing that feels like cheap television work.

The tragedy of 'Gatsby' for me is that there are a lot of ideas swimming around under the surface that are never quite crystalized. Bruce Dern turns in an interesting performance as Daisy's husband, Tom, spouting off ignorantly about the world, but not as a caricature. The themes about the world of class and privilege lacking morality are glossed over in some ways, but other elements of the story are incredibly heavy handed (the visual and theme of the Dr. T.J. Eckleburg billboard are horribly belabored). The scenes of Gatsby's parties are effective spectacles however, with various patrons dancing and drinking with abandon, spilling over into fountains and in some cases, never leaving. But all of that spectacle never paid off thematically. All it did was make me want to return to the novel and see what this story was supposed to be about in the first place.

Under discussion:

1941  (1979)

Back to the Future  (1985)

Back to the Future Part II  (1989)

I Wanna Hold Your Hand  (1978)

Used Cars  (1980)

Weird Science  (1985)

Forrest Gump  (1994)

'Back to the Future' has been a favorite film of mine since I was ten years old. That was my age when it was originally in theaters and I chose it over 'Weird Science' one fateful evening. In all the years since, I've probably paid more critical attention to the film's sequels and the other works of Robert Zemeckis, mostly because the original film was nearly perfect in my mind.

This past weekend, I was able to revisit 'Back to the Future' with an audience of mostly families. It wasn't screened on film, but it was a solid presentation from DVD with surround sound. I wasn't surprised that the film still held my attention, but there were some things that took me by surprise and even a couple things that made the movie seem oddly dated.

For those who may not remember, 'Back to the Future' is a time-travel fantasy that follows Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) on an accidental trip back in time via a time-travelling Delorean invented by Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd). While stuck in 1955, Marty has to contend not only with getting back to his own time, but he also must rectify the mistake of interferring with his own parents' meeting. If Marty can't get them together, he may cease to exist.

One of the things I always loved about 'Back to the Future' was that the script was quite dense and so many small things paid off later in the story. But watching now, I see things in the film that are a bit over the top and shouldn't really work. Looking back, the film goes out of its way to paint Doc Brown as an eccentric - the giant amplifier and the "25 minutes slow" clock experiement in the opening scene stretch credibility - and one can even note that Christopher Lloyd was more restrained in the sequels. The film is prone to cheap physical humor as well - I now know that kids love to see Michael J. Fox fall over. And seriously, as fun as the "Johnny B. Goode" scene may be, does it really serve a purpose to the story? But when it comes down to it, these flaws somehow add to the character of the film - things that shouldn't work just do. In serving story and logic, there are things in the film that should righfully be cut. But if they were gone, the film just wouldn't be as "fun."

Another thing that surprised me was that the dialogue, while quite clever, was not as smart as I had remembered.  The performances go a long way toward selling this material, however. Michael J. Fox may oversell a look or two, but he is often spot on with Marty's incredulous reactions to the 1950s world he find himself thrust into. Crispin Glover and Lea Thompson play the parents in the present (1985) and the past. The makeup that subtly ages the actors still holds up to scrutiny. Glover comes off the most impressive in distinguishing three incarnations of George McFly, with Thompson infusing her 1955 incarnation with a bit too much innocence at times.

One thing that impressed me on review of 'Back to the Future' was the use of music - particularly balancing hit pop music of the day with score. In fact, it's many minutes in to the film when you first hear actual score music, and that accompanies the introduction of the Delorean time machine. Up to that point, you only hear contemporary songs. In fact, unlike the first sequel to this film, the "theme" music doesn't play with the opening titles. Holding back the score until then helps characterize the present day in contrast to 1955, for one thing. I think this should be a lesson to filmmakers not to overuse score.

While not on the record about such things, I think that director Robert Zemeckis would probably regret some of his choices in 'Back to the Future.' Zemeckis' previous work at this point had been very broad, including a screenplay for the bombastic Spielberg comedy '1941' and the dark comedy 'Used Cars.' His work with building character has much improved since, culminating in the Oscar-winning 'Forrest Gump.' As previously mentioned, the characters in 'Back to the Future' are sometimes played too broadly. And there are several moments in the film that come off as sight gags that interrupt the flow of the story, complete with over-the-top knowing looks or double takes. These are things I don't think would have been satisfactory to the director just a few years later.

Some of Zemeckis' recurring motifs are quite present, however. Zemeckis will often play with the idea of taking a familiar scene or person and changing the context. In his debut, 'I Wanna Hold Your Hand,' a group of teenagers are present at the Beatles' debut on 'The Ed Sullivan Show.' In 'Forrest Gump,' the title character is thrust into an endless string of historical situations, showing up in newsreels and familiar events. In 'Back to the Future,' Marty returns to the present 10 minutes early to witness a scene from earlier in the story from a new perspective. While a lot of directors would re-use footage the audience had seen before, Zemeckis gives completely different views of the sequence, from Marty's perspective. Zemeckis also adds a lot of detail to his scenes that makes them interesting for multiple viewings. I had never noticed, until now, a couple times that Crispin Glover blended into the action behind other characters and slipped away quietly. The dressing of the famous "town square" set on the Universal back lot is impeccable for both 1955 and 1985 and one of the few instances, in my opinion, where a backlot street seems realistic.

Quite apparent from this film as well is Zemeckis' ability to captivate an audience with suspense and action. 'Back to the Future' contains more than one showstopper moment. The build-up of George's confrontation with arch-nemesis Biff is perfectly designed (resulting in applause at the screening I attended), as is the following sequence at the "Enchantment Under The Sea" dance where Marty begins to fade from existence. These pale in comparison, however, to the big finale where Marty and Doc must contend with various obstacles to make sure the time machine and a bolt of lightning intersect at a single crucial moment.

All of the sequences I just mentioned are so well planned that you can't help but get caught up in the excitement. The story shines in the invention of complications to all the obstacles and adding them at the crucial moment. As an audience-friendly comedy, the ending of 'Back to the Future' is never really in question. But even though you probably know the ultimate resolution, you forget about it with each of the unexpected smaller crises that come up as you are racing to that resolution.

In the end, the sense of fun, good performances and a true sense of excitement carry 'Back to the Future' much further than other films of its ilk. Despite the flaws that I can now pick out on hindsight, 'Back to the Future' is still a very watchable, entertaining film.