Reel Thoughts

Under discussion:

Being John Malkovich  (1999)

So, among the wonders of Netflix and probably the Blockbuster Online Service as well: when you start queuing your movies, the website fiercely and constantly lists recommendations for other movies you should want to watch, maintaining your interest and subscription in the process.  When I queued up Eternal Sunshine, and after already having rated films such as Adaptation, American Beauty, and Memento with five stars, Netflix recommended another Charlie Kaufman vehicle that I puzzlingly missed at the time of release, Being John Malkovich.  Naturally, I queued it up.  I think based on Eternal Sunshine and Adaptation, I can count myself a Kaufman fan.  He is something of a genius in his own right (or write, hee hee).

Oddly, though, I didn't like this film as much as the others.  I still liked it.  It is certainly one of the most creatively original movies I have ever come across, and the sheer fact of its originality makes it a highly recommendable film, even if the potential viewer were to ultimately hate it in the end.  Yet and still, I view the film, after a few days of digestion, as the visual equivalent of an acid trip.  It was beyond quirky, was rather dark, and went to places that I thought were interesting but not necessarily entertaining.  Still, props to Kaufman and Spike Jonze and the entire ensemble cast (not the least of which includes the titular man himself) for this wacky film.

Obligatory plot summary, to the best of my ability: John Cusack plays Craig Schwartz, a struggling puppeteer who decides to ease his financial troubles by taking a day job.  He finds himself on floor seven and a half (apparently designed in response to the impassioned plea of a token little person) and accepting a position as a file clerk, given his Guinness-inspired fast hands, and no thanks to the slightly deaf receptionist Flo (Mary Kay Place).  While in his office, he discovers a portal in the wall, which oddly enough, leads him to the brain of none other than actor John Malkovich, playing himself.  Through this portal, Craig spends 15 minutes as the elusive thespian before he is dumped magically into a ditch off the New Jersey Turnpike.  Of course, there are complications.  For one: there is Maxine (Catherine Keener), a co-worker for whom Craig has been lusting, with whom he shares information about the portal, and who ultimately gets the notion that a side business, charging wouldbe portal visitors $200 for an actual head trip, could be sprug up from this opportunity.  For two: Craig's wife Lotte (Cameron Diaz), in a completely nutty performance, who he also tells about the portal so as to assuage his guilt over the extra time spent with Maxine, wants a head trip herself.  Trouble is: she sees the trip as a life, and possibly, gender-changing experience, especially since Maxine decides to see what all the fuss is about regarding Malkovich and flirts her way to a date with him while Lotte is occupying his brain, at which point sparks fly.  And, of course, Malkovich himself eventually catches on to the fact that he is gradually losing control of his higher functions...

Phew.  That's the best I can do without giving away the whole ball of wax.  And what a sticky ball it is.  Again, this movie gets all A's from me for its level of originality.  The visual representations of the progress from mundane to extraordinary with each new visit to John's brain are something to behold.  My absolute favorite scene was when Mr. Malkovich as Mr. Malkovich realizes that his brain is the portal destination in question and decides to take the trip himself.  Highly disturbing yet equally hysterical, not to mention the deft little nod to philosophy without becoming too preachy - that scene was truly artful, in my humble opinion.

Also mesmerizing were the performances by the whole ensemble.  They handled this crazy material with expert craftsmanship.  There was complete suspension of disbelief on my part; I have to say I was really most impressed with Cameron Diaz, who doesn't get away from playing the slightly ditzy but wisecracking blonde often enough.  She was the only character who made me laugh, even when it was laughter of the nervous and/or uncomfortable type.

I can't say I loved this movie, though, and it boils right down to the subject matter.  Craig becomes a tragic character for reasons that are never fully realized in the story; all the viewer has are guesses, and to me, that's not something I should be guessing about.  Also, despite the intelligence and thought put into this script, there was also something intensely juvenile male-ish about it, from the underdeveloped Craig (is this the reason why he's tragic? is that a fault of his circumstances or his choices?) to the id versus ego sexual interplay of the four main characters to the ridiculous sideplot (regardless of the outcome) of Lester (Orson Bean) and his fountain of youth.  In the end, the film, as metaphor to me, is the visual fantasy of the quintessential nerd type who spends all of his time daydreaming as he sits in front of his computer (or whatever device he is currently using - and the term "device" is used liberally here), wanting for something he can never really have because he never really has the nerve to seize it in the end (and nerve is also used liberally).

If those last few remarks sounded scathing, they weren't intended to be.  It's only that I don't relate to the viewpoint that I actually saw being projected from the picture and its zany plot, and that lack of connection knocked my enjoyment of the flick down a notch for me.  I emphasize that I still appreciate the film for what it is, but I can't call it a masterpiece or even perfectly entertaining.  So, I rate it an even 8 for having minor flaws but still being very good.

In the end, though, it does not pass my test.  I couldn't watch this repeatedly.  I like weird, but this may be pushing my comfort limits on weird, and I feel I understood it enough the first time around.  I'm still glad I watched it, and I still say that anyone who hasn't seen it should find it and watch it for what it is: a true piece of art.

My only question: what if - just what if, and I know it's unlikely, given the actor we're talking about here, but pretend - what if John Malkovich had said, "No, you can't use my name and likeness for your warped little picture?"  Which actor would have been even remotely worthy as an alternative?? And would they still have made the picture?  These are the questions that plague me.  I know - I may be just as weird as this movie was.  Well, almost.

Under discussion:

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind  (2004)

I am really enjoying Netflix, I have to say.  It's a brilliant way to catch up on all of these movies I have otherwise not had the time to see, and I love the fact that there is no deadline pressure to watch these things.  They appear in the mailbox; I return them there when I'm done and put the little flag up.  All is magical about this service.

I promise I don't work for them.

Now, don't judge me here.  The next film in the queue was Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.  Hey, look, it's not like I haven't really really wanted to see this movie ever since it came out.  It's just one of those films that I haven't really had the chance to see until now.  Sometimes that happens.

This movie was all at once magical and twisted, beautiful and ugly, smart and yet senseless.  There was something poetic about it, and yet something that didn't quite gel when I pondered all of the pieces.  I loved it all the same, but it's a tempered love, a cautious love that keeps me from thinking this is the most brilliant movie I have ever seen.  It's certainly brilliant in its own fashion, don't get me wrong; it's just got a quality or an element that doesn't sit right with me.  I'll try to explain as best as I can, but I don't know how articulate I can be.

Eternal Sunshine...is billed as a romantic comedy, which I find ironic, because I never laughed.  Seriously, I never once laughed at this picture.  I chuckled bemusedly once or twice, grinned, and even inwardly rejoiced, but I never once laughed.  I didn't find this movie funny, and I'm very perplexed about that.

Eternal Sunshine is a boy meets girl picture that only Charlie Kaufman can write.  Jim Carrey (love him!) plays Joel, a man who learns that his girlfriend Clementine (Kate Winslet) has had a procedure performed that effectively erased all memory of him.  He decides that he should also do the same, so he visits the doctor (Tom Wilkinson) who invented the procedure and sets about it.  Stan (Mark Ruffalo) and Patrick (Elijah Wood--Frodo!) are the technicians responsible for the work, which is performed in Joel's apartment, except Stan is only interested in Mary (Kirsten Dunst), who visits Stan and kanoodles and gets way too stoned, and Patrick is only interested in Clementine, as he creepily assumes Joel's identify and a relationship with her now that she's lost memory of Joel (oh, and he steals her panties, yipes).  Complications arise when Joel, consciously or unconsciously, decides he can't go through with the procedure and, in his mind, tries to hold onto Clementine's memory.

The movie best works on the visual level based on the representation of Joel's memory wipe.  Michael Gondry's direction is simply brilliant, to match Kaufman's brilliant screenplay, that reminded me somewhat of a filmed version of the Beatles' "Revolution 9."  It had all these trippy pieces with no linear progression and very little connection, but it all represented the same thing: Joel revisiting memories good and bad that he fights desperately to cling to.  The cinematography and camera technique fit so well; I mean, at first it was distracting because of the lighting choices, the color palate, the blurs and other distortions, but then naturally, I adjusted to it because it fit what was happening.  I especially loved the scenes when Joel tried to "bury" Clementine's memory so he would not lose it and ultimately flashed back to childhood scenes, where Jim Carrey's actual size was at odds with his environment.  Those were the scenes that elicited bemused chuckles.

The movie does not work when considering that I did not think Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet had all that much chemistry.  Maybe that was deliberate; maybe I was supposed to think this pairing never had a chance in hell, and maybe that made the erased memory and the struggle to hang onto it more compelling?  I don't really think so.  I did not really believe them as a couple - though I did believe them as their individual characters.  Each actor's performance was marvellous (especially Kate's).  This is the bit that confused me a little.  When they were together, I never really believed they were together, even in the first frames, when we are first introduced to them.  When they were apart, however, I saw them, without much suspension of disbelief, as who they were trying to portray. I don't think it's because the characters themselves are supposed to be mismatched because even mismatched lovers can still have a spark of something between them; I never felt that between these two.  I don't have a good answer for this, unfortunately, but it undercut, somewhat, my ability to love the film wholeheartedly.

It's the sentiment of the film, the emotional center, that really drew me in and convinced me to love the film at all, though.  The situation Joel finds himself in is fantastic, even a bit absurd, but his struggle to hang onto whatever he knows of Clementine, because of his love for her, is real, and the full circle nature of the feature is an effective device for throwing the viewer into a tailspin and making them catch up, just as Joel has to catch up to those erased memories.

I think I have to rate this movie an 8.5, for having, say, one or two minor flaws but still being very good, but not for being perfectly entertaining, because it isn't really.  It's a convincing story that makes you think, but I wasn't laughing or crying or emotionally reacting as much as taking it all in.  Maybe repeat viewings would produce one or more of those effects; to that end, I think it passes my test.  It's weird enough and beautiful enough that I would want to watch it again and think about it some more.  Also, the title of the movie is a stroke of genius, which I appreciate.  All in all, it was a lovely film and, even, eternal in its own way.

Under discussion:

Stranger Than Fiction  (2006)

First, I have a stunning announcement - I have finally caved to the man and joined Netflix!  It's true!  I figured what with all the time I spend at work and then at a theater (and that's a stage theater, mind you, not a cinema), I don't have time to go to the movies or even to make umpteen trips to a rental store.  So, I decided I would try this handy little service, which is fine by me because I love when things just appear at my house, like DVD's I've purchased or Harry Potter books.  Online is my way to be.

I digress (again).  The first movie in my queue was this little film, which came to me by way of several high recommendations from trusted sources.  Plus, it stars my not-so-secret celebrity crush, Mr. Will Ferrell.  Even when his movies are stupid and painful (Anchorman, anyone?), I still keep coming back for more because I find him so oddly appealing.  And he is odd, so I can't explain this subtle attraction I have for him...anyways.  Also, this movie has been a popular choice for Netflix users, so it was easy to add to my queue, considering how much I've been wanting to see it.

I must say, I really loved it.  This film had me smiling from the first frame to the last.  It has its (few) flaws, but the flaws themselves are sort of endearing, much like the flawed main characters of the piece.

Will plays Harold Crick, an IRS agent and an individual as ordinary as ordinary can be.  He's living his meaningless, uneventful, uninspired, unfulfilled (and lonely) life when he suddenly realizes that his life is being narrated, so only he can hear it, by a female voice, who, in telling his story, indicates that he will die.  The voice belongs to a struggling author, Kay Eiffel (Emma Thompson), who is certain her Harold will die, since she kills off heroes in all of her novels, but is struggling to find the inspiration as to how.  Harold, thusly, enlists various sources of help, including that of a somewhat nutty literature professor played by Dustin Hoffman.  He also encounters Maggie Gyllenhaal, a personality as opposite as can be, who opens him up to life's possibilities as much as the possibility of facing his own literary and literal demise.

In reading the All Movie Guide blurb at the bottom of this movie's Spout page, I noticed that AMG labeled Stranger Than Fiction "the best movie that Charlie Kaufman never wrote."  I thought that was a stunningly apt description, because this film is very Kaufman-esque, and I thought so during the movie.  There are many stories within stories to consider, but none is more compelling than Harold's.  Mr. Ferrell's performance amazed me.  In fact, I'm often amazed when the most hyperactive comedians tone it down and offer gripping, nuanced performances.  He was so believable as this man, this Harold Crick, that I actually forgot it was Will Ferrell for a while, and isn't that really the goal of any performance? Also, that's the first time I've ever been able to say that about this particular actor, since he tends to have a distinct style of comedic performance; he's often very loud, for example, and he was only truly loud once while trying to address the disembodied voice directly (to great effect).

Emma Thompson was also stunning, as usual, when playing the decidedly quirky, chain-smoking author.  The tics and tantrums that she had were interesting, but her performance became truly compelling when she realized that Harold was, in fact, a real person, and when she actually had a moral choice to make about his life as it related to her story.

The supporting performances were also very good, although good old Dustin struck me as playing a much more well-read version of himself.  Of course, watching Mr. Hoffman reading the phone book would probably be entertaining, and he was kind of the perfect choice for this particular professor.  The best supporting performance?  Harold's wrist watch.

I think, ultimately, this movie worked for me because of how mundanely meaningful it turned out to be despite the extraordinary and highly original concept.  The themes of seizing the day and facing life (or death) with zeal and no fear have been visited before but never quite like this.  Also, I didn't go into this movie thinking it would be an uproarious comedy.  I think that those who felt disappointed by it might have been under the impression that this was another of Will Ferrell's massively spastic comedies just because he was the star and because he's really never been in a movie like this and were probably surprised to find it was something quite different.  PS, I commend him for broadening his acting repetoire.  While I never laughed out loud, I always had a smile on my face, from the first words of Kay's describing Harold's run-of-the-mill existence, to the time when he realizes he's being narrated, to the consequences of Kay's ultimate choice.  Plus, and I'll say it again - I never have been so taken with a wrist watch.

One flaw I particularly remember is that somewhere toward the middle of the film, the tempo slowed quite considerably.  It was around the time Harold first visited Mr. Hoffman's professor and then kept returning in an effort to figure out what kind of story Harold was in (comedy versus tragedy and the like).  I understand the point of the plot device, but it was overused to the point at which I felt the movie got bogged down a little in its own exposition.  Let's put it this way: I felt myself getting a little sleepy on Harold's third or fourth visit and did not fully recover from this dozy feeling until Harold discovered the female voice in his head belonged to someone real.  Believe me, sleepyness is very true benchmark I use when I judge a movie, particularly when I'm watching it in the middle or late afternoon, like I did this one.

Nevertheless, the heavy eyelids moments were few and short-lived.  I really enjoyed this movie in the end; I was even moved to a few tears.  For its minor flaw(s), I rate this movie an 8 or "very good."  I also think it passes the test.  I could imagine myself pulling this movie out for a giggle.  After all, life really can be stranger than fiction - if it weren't, there would be no fiction at all.