Reel Thoughts

Under discussion:

The Squid and the Whale  (2005)

Returning to the string of indie flicks I've been immersed in these last few weeks, Netflix sent me The Squid and the Whale this week.  As much as I love film, and even indies, I know so little about these films because they tend to fly under the radar (unless your radar is honed in on them, and mine typically is not).  Apparently, this film had some buzz surrounding it at the time of its release, but I didn't hear any of it.  I was simply interested in the story, and, thusly, I rented it.  And I enjoyed it.  It wasn't a perfect film, but it was a very good film in many of my estimations.

In Brooklyn, in 1986, Bernard (Jeff Daniels) and Joan (Laura Linney) are two writers in a rapidly failing marriage.  Bernard's career as a novelist has taken a turn south, while Joan's career is blossoming.  In addition, there have been some indiscretions on both parts, including a string of affairs undertaken by Joan.  Caught in the crossfire are their two sons, Walt (Jesse Eisenberg) and Frank (Owen Kline), who deal with the divorce in different ways.  Walt, who is 16 years old and idolizes his father, sides unflinchingly with Bernard, regardless of any skewed perspective he might be fed, and to the detriment of his relationship with his mother.  Frank, who is 12 years old, sides with his mom but acts out his disturbed reaction to the news of the divorce with public self-gratification and underage drinking.  Complicating matters are Joan's budding relationship with Frank's nouveau hippie tennis instructor Ivan (William Baldwin) and Bernard's dalliance with one of his writing students, Lili (Anna Paquin).  The film centers on the boys' experience dealing with the normal woes of adolescence while simultaneously attempting to navigate the emotional minefield of their parents' divorce. 

The film was directed by Noel Baumbach and is a semi-autobiographical account of his own experience dealing with the divorce of his parents.  I have never seen a Baumbach picture before, to my knowledge, so I have nothing to compare this film to or to consider other than what I saw.  For me, this was a worthwhile story that danced among many different and interwoven themes.  On one hand, it was a straightforward story of the effects of divorce on a family, including the emotional blackmail and overcompensation that often accompanies joint custody situations.  On the other hand, it's an examination of deeply flawed characters who form this family unit and somehow have to manage to tolerate each other for the sake of each other.  The film also offers a biting examination of the types of writers who think of themselves as more than they are (both Bernard and Walt, for example, seem fond of snap judgments about literature they've never read).  The whole film is told with a sardonic undercurrent that lightens what would otherwise be tragic in terms of the failed marriage and the degrading relationships between parents and children.  The emotions and reactions explored are visceral and uncompromised.

The performances were very good, especially the amazingly mature performance by Owen Kline (who is Kevin Kline and Phoebe Cates' son, so he's got some genetic predisposition for acting greatness).  Also, the soundtrack is amazing, intermixing 80s pop hits with some more contemporary, alternative singer-songwriter tracks and prominent, effective, and hilarious use of Pink Floyd's "Hey You."  Also, the art direction and costuming was very good; it felt like the 80s again watching this film.  One particular prop I noticed was Burger King glasses such as the kind that would have been sold separately with a Whopper and a Coke, which I thought was a nice touch.  Also, Mr. Baumbach and his photographers and cinematographer used the camera well in capturing the essence not only of the time period but of the flavor of New York City.  Brooklyn and its neighborhoods were as much a character in the story as any one person.

My only complaint about this movie stems from the abrupt ending (vaguely spoilery ahead) that found no resolution for the characters and no sense even of the direction the characters might be headed, at least apart from Walt, the film version of Mr. Baumbach's younger self.  I would have felt entirely more satisfied if I saw that one of these four flawed family members took something away from their vicious cycle of pain and strife or had an inkling about where that character might be headed given what was past.  It didn't have to be a happy ending - just one that implied some conclusion to the painful leg of life's journey depicted by this picture.  Maybe what was there was supposed to do that, but I simply felt incomplete when the final credits rolled, as if I missed the point.  The imagery of the title sea creatures was effective - but the story was as much about the characters individually as it was about how they related to one another.  I felt that there was something of a cop out at the end, relying on a contrived trauma to, at least temporarily, end the bickering and force serious self-examination, at least for Walt, without showing some of the results of that self-examination.

Perhaps, the imperfect ending is meant to be a larger symbol of the imperfection of these realistically flawed human characters.  I don't know.  All I know is, I was into the film and then said aloud, "That's it?"  The Squid and the Whale was on the right track but seemed to stop short of becoming something truly profound.  In any case, I still enjoyed it because it was an admirable and enjoyable attempt at painting a true portrait of human nature and reaction in an all-too-common occurrence in today's society.  For that reason, I feel this film warrants an 8 for being very good but with minor flaws - or, perhaps, one major flaw in terms of the abrupt ending that, at least, left me unsatisfied.  As good as the film is, I don't think it passes the test of purchase.  Truthfully, and happily, I don't actually relate to the subject matter all that much - my parents are still married, and though I know these writer types, and the caricatures here made me chuckle, it wasn't enough to want to watch the film repeatedly.  The Squid and the Whale is recommendable, though, because, at the very least, it's a mature and poignant examination of the internal and external conflicts that frequently motivate our actions - whether those actions are mature and/or poignant or not.

Under discussion:

All About Eve  (1950)

What's the AFI Project, you ask?  For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx

All About Eve is on the following AFI lists:

The Original Top 100 (#16)
100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Eve Harrington is the #23 villain)
100 Movie Quotes (#9 - Margo Channing: "Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night.")
The Revised Top 100 (#28)

Thanks to Netflix, I moved right along down the AFI Original list to the next entry, All About Eve, which I had never seen before.  I knew about it only vaguely and mostly knew only random factoids, such as the short but memorable turn by Marilyn Monroe as an aspiring, ditzy actress of questionable talent.  By the way, she was far less annoying and much funnier in this picture than she was in Some Like It Hot, but I digress.  I also knew the famous quote uttered by Bette Davis' Margo Channing, diva extraordinaire, about fastening some seatbelts.  I looked forward to watching this film because of its fabulous cast, and as a theater person, I couldn't go wrong with a premise surrounding the dramatic theatrical world.  In fact, I was kind of excited and, to wit, my excitement was well-rewarded.  All About Eve is an outstanding film, as entertaining as it is artistically sound, and since I watch films for both qualities (give me art and entertainment, I want it all!), I was very happy.

The Eve of the title is Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter), who has seen every performance by theatrical tour de force Margo Channing (Davis, in her own tour de force performance and the best of her career).  Margo's best friend, Karen Richards (Celeste Holm), takes pity on Eve, huddled in the stage doorway in the rain, and brings her to Margo's dressing room to meet her idol.  Eve tells a heart-wrenching story to support what I would consider an unsettling fanaticism for Margo, about her poor upbringing and tragic marriage ending in the death of her war hero husband, and soon everyone, including the viewer, forgets the fact that Eve saw every single performance of Margo's latest play and seemingly stalks her too.  Margo is so taken with the adoration (as any actress can be), she hires Eve as an assistant and gives her a home, but Margo, and her knowing head of household Birdie, see that Eve is more than she seems after awhile.  Things begin to happen without Margo's knowledge, mostly surrounding her lover and director Bill Sampson (Gary Merrill), and Margo's natural insecurities about her advancing age (she reveals she's 40) and her status as the actress of the moment feed into other, more conspiratorial notions about Eve.  While everyone around Margo, including Karen and her playwright husband Lloyd, who writes parts specifically for Margo, thinks she's simply being crazy and theatrical - the consummate actress - they soon realize that Margo's instincts may be right.  What doesn't help matters is that acid critic and columnist, Addison DeWitt (George Sanders), takes a personal interest in Eve, resulting in a revealing column praising Eve's performance after she fills in as Margo's understudy - a position into which she manipulated herself without Margo's knowledge to begin with.

I have to say, I really loved this film.  I'm a theater person myself, though I mostly play the role of techie or stage manager and occasionally director.  Diva actresses are a relatable topic, and Director Joseph L. Manciewicz's ingenius screenplay, taking gentle but uncompromised swipes at the world and society of theater, was simply brilliant, and his Oscars were well-deserved.  The script was so smart, so clever, and so wittily ascerbic, there were some true moments of sardonic comedy that played very well in this satire.  The dialogue was amazing, and the story was original, complete with some intriguing shades of gray.  Some of it may seem dated, but I actually think it has a timeless relevance.  After all, the theater isn't going anywhere, and as Lloyd Richards eloquently jibes, "Actresses never die!"

And those actresses!  The women rule this movie, which is probably another reason why I love it.  I mean, Margo and Eve are two of the juiciest roles I've ever seen, and Bette and Anne played them to perfection.  Bette Davis in particular was stunning as Margo; she gave Margo a complex and multilayered existence with many emotional undercurrents that were all at once human and otherworldly.  Her quiet philosophical moments were just as entertaining as her temper tantrums, and her delivery of some of those fantastically bitchy barbs were so unique, original, imitated but never duplicated, and awesome.  The "fasten your seatbelts" quote is so notable and so famous because dear Bette made it that way.

Yet, Anne Baxter was also brilliant, playing this ambitious young upstart with impenetrable moral ambiguity, until her goose is finally cooked, and she lets loose.  Eve is arguably a good kid at heart, but her greed and ambition and addiction for applause consume her.  She makes you want to feel sorry for her and cheer for her, even though you knew all along that she was a conniving little minx.  That's a great performance on many levels, not only for the audience but for the characters she was trying to fool.

Then, there was George Sanders.  His appearance in the film was limited to, perhaps, a third, but his portrayal of the snake-like Addison made the character one the audience hates to love or loves to hate.  He won the Oscar too, and I couldn't argue with it.

From a filmmaking perspective, I don't think there was anything particularly novel, except for the awesome costumes.  I never noticed the score or any particular camera use or prop or setting that screamed groundbreaking or innovative to me, but that's not to say that these aspects weren't completely competent.  For me, All About Eve was the whole package, but the true art lies in the story and the performances.

My only problem with this film was the ending (vaguely spoilery ahead).  It felt rushed.  Margo's last barb to Eve lacked some of the punch of her earlier ones, and taking the focus away from Margo and Eve to focus on the cycle beginning anew felt somewhat anticlimactic to me.  Maybe I was hoping for a more traditional comeuppance that I could witness, rather than the hint of what was to come.  It wasn't just that, though.  It just felt like there was a rush to get it done and to break with the characters, particularly with Eve, the seemingly misunderstood antagonist.  It just didn't feel right to me, but I don't think the ending was necessarily bad either.  It fit in a sense, but it also didn't fit in a sense.  It's hard to explain.

And it's what keeps from giving this film a 10 for being a masterpiece.  But, I will give it a 9.5, between masterpiece and perfectly entertaining.  Also, I think this film passes the test.  It has all the film ingredients that work for me, including a relatable story based on an interesting and relatable premise that makes me want to show my theater friends why it should be All About Eve (and that would be easiest if I bought it).  I highly recommend this flick.  It also contains some remarkably candid and not untrue observations about women, then and now, without sexist undertones.  For 1950, that was an amazing feat in and of itself.

Under discussion:

Broken Flowers  (2005)

My Netflix queue brought me another Jim Jarmusch film this week, which was good, because I wanted to give him another chance after the unrelatable mishmash that was Coffee and Cigarettes.  Sorry, I simply had no love for that film.  I don't really love this film either, but I liked it much better because it was so much more engaging.  I knew nothing about Broken Flowers save for the basic plot summary and the fact that Bill Murray is in it, and since he's one of my absolute favorite actors, I had to see the movie.  Bill Murray never fails to impress me, and he did so a bit here too.  Except, this film felt a bit too much like Lost in Translation, only in a different context and frame of mind, for me to think it was a great movie or even Bill's finest performance.

Bill plays Don Johnston (with a T, not to be confused with former Mr. Miami Vice), an aging bachelor and ladies man who's latest girlfriend Sherry (Julie Delpy) has just walked out on him.  She hands him the mail, which contains a letter typed on pink stationary, unsigned and with no return address, advising him that he fathered a son 20 years ago.  Don's neighbor Winston (Ghostbusters anyone? Played by Jeffrey Wright), a family man who fancies himself an amateur detective, develops a strategy for Don to deduce the letter's origins.  He and Don narrow down the possibilities for this hypothetical child's mother to four possible former girlfriends, and soon, Don is flying all over the country (or maybe just the state of New York, since his ubiquitous Taurus always has New York plates), visiting his old girlfiends.  There's Laura (Sharon Stone), the over-lusty widow of a race car driver with a daughter whose libido rivals her own; Dora (Frances Conroy), a real estate agent with the perfect, pre-fabricated suburban life; Carmen (Jessica Lange), an "animal communicator" with an overprotective assistant (Chloe Sevigny); and Penny (Tilda Swinton), an aging biker beauty with no-nonsense bodyguards.

Broken Flowers is about the journey of a man whose routine of empty relationships and the lonely bachelor's life has resulted in boredom and an apathetic attitude.  Visiting his old flames sort of gets him out of his rut, if only for a brief while, and makes him consider possibilities he would otherwise not be able to entertain.  He also gets some taste of what might have been with each of these women, had he invested some emotional commitment in any of the relationships.

I enjoyed this movie because, as always, I enjoyed Bill Murray.  He was kind of the perfect casting choice for Don because his ability to manage self-effacing hollowness while maintaining a wry smirk works well for this character.  His performance is another masterwork of subtlety: facial expressions and vocal inflections that betray so much more than a bored, slightly annoyed middle aged man with no looming hopes or dreams.

As I mentioned, though, I felt like this character was a carbon copy of his Lost in Translation character.  Instead of someone who felt foreign in a foreign land, he played someone who had to be shaken from his comfort zone, no matter how empty and meaningless that comfort zone had become.  Yet and still, the man seemed to be the same archetype, so it was no surprise that Bill could affect such a great performance, since he'd done it before.

As the filmmaking went, I felt it was pretty tight.  Great use of the camera to add so much texture to small moments; excellent soundtrack; good art direction.  The choice of the color pink to tie each woman together was a great symbol for the rut in which Don found himself (even down to his choice of women).  The pacing was also perfect; it was a slow film, but it never lost itself in its slowness and was never boring.  It kept a steady, determined pace to match the steady determination of Don's quest to find the answers to questions asked and unasked.

My only problems with this film came down to story.  The ending was really dissatisfying to me; maybe it was supposed to be, but even if certain questions were never going to be answered, I felt it would have been nice to give us a flavor of what Don might have learned from the whole experience, other than the "philosphical" nugget he offers near the end of the film.  Maybe some glimpse of the future, or some idea as to how the whole thing affected him.  Also, I feel the viewer is given very little insight into what convinces Don to take this journey to begin with - he's adamant that the letter is at best a hoax, but then falls hook, line, and sinker for Winston's pitch about solving the mystery.  At first, I assumed it was morbid curiosity, until each new visit stirred some latent parental responsibility and wave of nostalgia in him.  Maybe the viewer is only supposed to assume and guess, I don't know.  I kept wondering if only men facing midlife crises would relate to this film, and maybe these outstanding questions would resonate better with those types of viewers.

Still, I found myself interested in Don's journey. I was disappointed in some narrative wishes, but I still occasionally chuckled.  The best scene is when Don complains to Winston over the telephone in a hotel room that Winston should have rented him a Porsche because, instead, he's a "stalker in a Taurus."

All in all, I feel this film warrants a 7.5 between shaky and minor flaws/very good, due to some of the narrative flaws (even if the flaws are such in my eyes only).  I was still entertained, and I still love Bill Murray, but this film won't pass the test.  It's kind of depressing for starters and didn't really offer any answers to the mysteries aside from some insinuations; I don't care to watch quasi-frustrating films more than once, but I do think the film is worth one viewing, because the art is there, even if the flowers are broken.