Reel Thoughts

Under discussion:

Brokeback Mountain  (2005)

You are probably aghast, thinking, "What, you haven't seen this movie until now??"  Well, no.  Truth be told, when this movie was out, and the buzz and controversy surrounded it, I knew the experience of watching it would be cheapened if not altogether ruined.  This was why I was so happy to have seen Crash when I did, at least three or four months before it unexpectedly snatched Best Picture honors from this film, the heavy favorite at the time.  I figured I'd see this one when I saw it.  No rush.  Then, my happy-to-lend friend had it amongst her traveling collection, and the rest is history.

The story is relatively simple.  Emotionally scarred and introverted Innis DelMar (Heath Ledger) and gregarious Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) are cowboys hired as sheep herders by seedy boss Gary (Randy Quaid).  They are expected to take the sheep up into the mountains, specifically Brokeback Mountain, for grazing.  While there, they form a friendship and then an emotional bond - and then a physical bond (though seeds are planted that Jack may have fancied this from the get-go).  The job comes to an end, and the pair forage ahead with separate lives.  Innis marries Alma (Michelle Williams), stays a rancher, and becomes a father of two girls.  Jack marries Lorraine (Anne Hathaway), works for her father, and becomes a father of one son.  Except, Jack takes fishing trips from Texas to Colorado for the purpose of carrying on his affair with Innis, and it goes like this for 20 years, as the pair repeatedly visit Brokeback while trying to live lives of lies.

I know this film has been much overhyped.  Some people think it's overrated.  Some people think it's a poor example of a "mainstream gay" movie.  I think all are wrong.  I thought the picture was moving, poignant, and beautiful.  First, let me provide the disclaimer that Ang Lee is easily one of my favorite directors.  There is not a film of his that I have seen that I didn't like.  He has the ability to elicit emotional responses from his actors, regardless of the situation being probed under his watchful eye, that simply blow my mind.  Heath and Jake were no less than courageous to undertake such roles, which are headier (no pun intended) than most mainstream movie fans can handle.  We're talking about a largely conservative mainstream, and this movie had some graphic elements to it that people unaccustomed to accepting the notion of homosexual love would probably be put off by.  Yet, this director and these actors handled it with grace and beauty, giving it a delicate perspective.

The cinematography was simply breathtaking.  It was extremely effective to use the panorma of the Rocky Mountains and foothills for this unorthodox love story, and it also added to the feeling of intimacy created, since it was just the two boys out in the wide open world.  It was like the movie Blue Lagoon, only better acted with a better story and in the mountains-and with two men.

The performances by the two leads were so underrecognized.  Heath Ledger was particularly nuanced, playing an already emotionally stunted man unable to express his feelings even when he wasn't engaged in an illicit affair with another man.  The progress of his character was tremendous, and while no doubt captured in the script beautifully by the original author and screenwriters, Heath showed every emotional change and iota of progress in a painfully exquisite manner.  Jake also was very good; I get the feeling that his character always knew he was gay, and the careful use of his expressions to create that question or possibility was skillful.  He also conveyed the pain he felt at his regular separations from Innis quite effectively.

Yet, the supporting performances were equally as good.  Michelle Williams was nominated for Best Supporting Actress and deserved it.  That scene in her new kitchen in her new house with her new husband, where she confronts Innis about the unread note in his unused tackle box, was powerful beyond measure.

The score was also impressive (and won the Oscar) and was something truly unique that added so much texture to the film.

I did find flaws with the movie, though.  My biggest problem was the make-up.  Innis and Jack aged 20 years according to the timeline of the movie, and yet failed to age physically as characters very well.  They worked hard and had lots of pain but still looked like they were 20 when they were supposed to be 40.  By the end of the movie, Innis had a 19 year old daughter, yet he still looked like he was 25.  That made maintaining suspension of disbelief difficult for what was an important final scene.  Also, Anne Hathaway's obvious wigs to "age" her were atrocious.  They looked like wigs, specifically Dolly Parton's castoffs.  They might have considered more face makeup to make this amount of time elapsing seem more realistic on the faces of the actors.

Also, the ending of the movie, or, at least, the climactic event that I can't spoil seemed altogether too hurried for me.  We already saw Jack in different places like Mexico by himself; it would have been important for me to see how and why the manner in which the end unfolded (trying not to spoil) eventually took place, rather than just through some quasi-imagining of Innis' or odd flashback of Lorraine's.

Still, I find the film haunting in the end.  It's the mark of a great movie, I think: exploring an uncomfortable subject with grace and beauty and making it seem as if it were comfortable all along, at least on some level.  I also found the film, as a character study of Innis, to be insightful in many ways, though I don't have the time or gumption to discuss all of them - that's a whole other entry.  I rate Brokeback Mountain an 8 for minor flaws/very good.  I don't think it passes the test, however.  I'm not a fan of westerns in general, and this is the kind of film that is most powerful on first viewing.  I don't think I would want to watch it again.  The memory of it is enough by which to appreciate this very good film.

Under discussion:

The Constant Gardener  (2005)

The Constant Gardener was my Netflix movie of the week, no doubt inspired by the fact that it was an Oscar-winning flick (Rachel Weisz won Best Supporting Actress).  I had not watched this movie around the time of its release, but for no particular reason other than I had not cultivated any special interest in seeing it except for the fact that Oscar paid attention to it.  I read the plot synopsis, though, and thought it might be an interesting movie.

It's based on a novel of the same name that I have not read.  In fact, I rarely pick up politlcal thrillers, so it is doubtful that I would have read it anyway.  Also, I have never seen any of Fernando Meirelles' previous films, including City of God (contrary to analogzombie's particular assertion, which I read in the review below mine).  I had little to no information on what to expect this time around, which I don't mind.  I like to expand my horizons as much as possible, and watching a film you have little to no interest in or information about is a good way to do that.

My immediate reaction upon viewing this movie, however, is numbness.  I don't really feel anything.  I'm not sure why.

Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes) is a British diplomat working for the High Commission who prefers not to ruffle feathers.  He is married to Tessa (Weisz), a woman with a "revolutionary spirit," who is quite passionate when she has adopted a cause.  When Justin is assigned to go to Kenya, Tessa goes with him, and while Justin warns Tessa to not become too involved in the lives of the poverty-stricken villagers she meets, Tessa and a handsome native doctor, Arnold, take up the cause of exposing a pharmaceutical company's efforts to test a trial, dangerous, and, more often than not, fatal tuberculosis drug on Africans.  Tessa is brutally murdered, however, and Justin, in his grief, adopts her cause, despite growing suspicions that Tessa was having an affair with Arnold. As Justin begins to dig deeper, looking for the culprit behind his wife's death, he also discovers a larger conspiracy he could never have begun to fathom. Oh, and the title comes from the fact that Justin is an avid gardener, to the point of cultivating his own garden in Africa.  His garden is where he finds solace.

I think I feel numb because, again, this movie and, perhaps, the novel could not decide what it wanted to be.  On the one hand, it was a love story, though the viewer spends a long time trying to guess at whether or not Tessa is having an affair, leaving that love story disconnected from engaging the viewer most of the time.  On the other hand, it's a politlcal thriller, implicating high-ranking British officials in a financial and humanistic conspiracy.  Actually, the film felt much like Syriana (George Clooney was Rachel's counterpart in 2005), except told from a different angle and about a different industry.  On still another hand, the film felt like a documentary, painting the plight of Africa as a whole.  In fact, Tessa's cousin Hamm, who enters the picture briefly at points of interest to provide plot-specific information to Justin, offers a long diatribe about why Africa is a "continent of guilt" for the rest of the world.  In addition, Meirelles liberally used a handheld camera during many of the scenes in Kenya, which was interesting artistically but also distracting.

This film was not as complex as Syriana, though, because I think the love story was the heart of the movie, but it was still largely didactic.  The performances were very good, and Rachel displayed a wide range of emotions in this role.  In fact, her character was as multi-layered as the film itself, and she, no doubt, deserved her Oscar.

All in all, the film was well done - well written, well acted, well shot, but it was not a film that engaged me as much as I thought it would.  Also, the pacing was slow and long as the plot simmered before it was brought to a boil.  I just don't have a strong reaction to it either way, and sometimes that happens, but I'm at a loss for words here.

My rating for this film will be an 8 for minor flaws/very good, for much the same reasoning that I gave Sin City an 8 even though I didn't particularly care for the movie.  It was well put together and highly original but just not my cup of tea, and I feel the same way about the Constant Gardener.  Perhaps it was the frame of mind in which I watched it, but I just wasn't engaged; it, therefore, does not pass the test.  City of God is on my queue somewhere, though, and I look forward to watching that one.  Also, I think this film is worth watching; I just wish I had connected with it on a more constant basis.

Under discussion:

The Devil Wears Prada  (2006)

Since my very good friend is in town, brought some of her movie collection, and decided to show me Waiting for Guffman, she passed off a few movies of hers that she also felt I should see, to which I agreed because they are all on my Netflix queue somewhere or another.  She allowed me to borrow six, and the first one I watched was the Devil Wears Prada.  She told me she loved this movie, and that she has watched it a gazillion times because Meryl Streep is awesome, and it's a feel-good movie. I agree, to a point. I also disagree, to a point.

This is a film based on a book, which I did not read and would, in fact, probably never have read, nor will I pick it up now, because it's about the fashion world, a world I care little about (though I do love clothes, but my personal style is extremely schizophrenic).  I became interested in this movie when it was released because Meryl Streep did receive some Oscar buzz last awards season (when does she not receive Oscar buzz?) and because several people that I knew who watched this movie loved it, not the least of which included my very good friend.

Andrea "Andy" Sachs (Anne Hathaway), fresh out of college, in her quest to be a magazine writer, applies for a job at the fictitious Runway magazine, which is headed up by Miranda Priestly (Streep).  Runway happens to be one of only a couple of magazines in New York City, allegedly, with job openings for young writers, which is apparently why Andy, who has no interest in fashion, applies.  Miranda is a fashionista and a diva who rules her magazine with an iron fist, and Andy becomes her second assistant, trying to survive the capricious whims and long hours under Miranda. She must also survive first assistant Emily (Emily Blunt), an ambitious employee looking to stay in the business and survive herself.  Andy, despite the tests of her sanity, patience, and the sanctity of her personal life with boyfriend Nate, sticks out the job because, apparently, surviving Miranda for one year will open doors to other magazines because of her power, presence, and influence.  The trouble is, Andy's battle is uphill, and it may be more uphill than it is worth.

To me, this movie was uneven, disconnected, and in some ways, it did not make sense.  My format for this particular review will be unusual, as I am going to outline three good things and three bad things I saw in the Devil Wears Prada.

Good

1.  The message of believing in oneself and in one's personal choices and in knowing when to make the right choice for oneself is undeniable, but that may be more a credit to the author of the novel than to any of the filmmakers.

2. Meryl Streep is wickedly delicious as Miranda.  She reminds me of Cruella De Ville, but she never takes Miranda to a place that's over the top or beyond the limits of suspension of disbelief, like Glenn Close did in the live action 101 Dalmatians.  As only Meryl Streep can do, she manages to make Miranda more emotionally complex and interesting than what might simply be relegated to the antagonist of the story and to a superficial fashion magazine editor to boot.

3. The supporting players in this film were the best part.  In addition to Streep, the more compelling performances of this movie belonged to Stanley Tucci and Emily Blunt.  Blunt was fantastic as the driven and catty Emily, fashion's answer to the Grinch with a heart to melt and grow. The most interesting character in the whole film, in my humble opinion however, was Tucci's Nigel.  His character was the most fleshed out: he played the token gay man in this fashion-related environment with deference and heart, never making him cartoonishly flamboyant (because not all gay men are). His begrudging but touching act of taking Andy under his wing while treating her fashion maladjustments made him someone to root for, though he never compromised his debutantish snarkyness.  He should have been nominated for a best supporting player award; his was arguably the best character and performance in the whole movie.

The other best supporting player award goes to the astounding mass of designer clothing solicited from real-life designers for the costumes and accessories in this movie.  Oh, how I wanted to be Andy when Nigel took her in for a fashion makeover.   Her outfits were so cute!  Not that I could have gotten away with a free wardrobe overhaul at a designer's closet in the offices of a fashion magazine...I admit that I'm nothing like a size 4 (or 6 for that matter).

Bad

1.  Anne Hathaway played Andy with grace, natural beauty, and charm, but she also played her with an extremely confusing set of motivations.  This may not be entirely her fault (see number 2).  She also seemed restrained, which may be the director's fault, but she has a decent capacity for physical comedy, seen in the Princess Diaries movies, which could have been used to a point in this movie to liven up her character.  I found Andy to be devoid of any real emotion at first, at least until everything started falling apart around her.  Of course, again, that may not be Hathaway's fault as much as the directors and the writers...speaking of which...

2. The writing did not even make a ton of sense, and I don't know if it's the original author's story or the screenwriters lousy adaptation to blame.  Why does Andy want to be a writer and not go to Stanford law school (she passed up Stanford?? What???)?  Why does she choose to stick it out at Runway instead of Auto World if she has no interest in fashion, especially since she doesn't find out until much later that working for Miranda will open up doors for her?  Why in hell, if she is so ambitious and truly aspiring to be a magazine writer, would she turn down a chance to meet the editor of the New York Mirror with the hunky author-dude when she was already late for Nate's birthday party and would already have had to contend with his disappointment?  Especially since she was ambitious enough to call this guy in the first place to track down an advance copy of a Harry Potter manuscript?  Andy's character is a mess.  Truthfully, not everyone knows what they want to do all the time, and her moments of confusion are true to life, but if she has enough conviction to tell her dad that she wants to turn down Stanford to be a writer, and if she's willing to do whatever it takes in some situations, why would she then falter at this very crucial point?  Which brings me to number 3...

3. ...This film (and maybe the book too) has a very mixed message about girl power.  It really kind of presents the choice of be a b***h and get ahead and majorly successful, or be nice and settle for what you can get.  Andy also makes lots of compromises for Nate and is made to feel guilty when she starts to change, by not only Nate but her best friend.  I'm not sure what message the film is trying to convey here.  I feel like this film is reinforcing lots of double standards and stereotypes and is kind of inherently sexist, which is ironic, because it was written by a woman.  I also don't like this "accept it for what it is" attitude, which is the climactic lesson taught to Andy by Miranda.  Granted, the choices Andy is presented are somewhat faustian in nature (the sacrifices are for the Prada-wearing devil after all), but the whole plot just leaves me feeling empty in the end.  Of course, the entire fashion world celebrates superficiality, so perhaps delving any deeper or striving for truly empowering messages on what women can do outside of traditional stereotypes and even societal and cultural realities is beyond the scope of this story.

In any event, I did feel entertained. I liked this movie to a point.  Andy did make the right choices in the end and felt good about it, and to that end, I felt good too.  Yet, this film is too much like a fake Prada bag one buys in the street to make it look like they are wearing Prada when really they are wearing a knockoff.  It only looks like it's quality, but it's not the real thing, so the quality just isn't there.  To that end, I rate this movie a 6.5.  It's a little shakier than shaky plotwise, but it is more entertaining than merely "cute."  I did feel good, laughed, and even shed a small tear in the final scene.  The soundtrack was also good.

I don't think this movie passes the test, though.  I might watch it again on cable, but I don't find it worth owning.  There is a much better story out there about girl power and believing in oneself and one's choices and values and staying true to one's own morals and ethics that even takes place in the fashion world.  There is Prada and Jimmy Chu and Dolce and Gabana and Louis Vuitton all over it.  I recommend Ugly Betty, the TV show.  It's funnier and snarkier and has a heroine that more people can relate to and root for who is not so all over the place as Andy.   This movie's worth the rental, but Ugly Betty is worth its weight in feel goodness and empowering message.