Review: Of Time and the City

The immaculate row of suspended brick apartments stand confidently, symmetrically and beautifully constant amidst the fog and condominiums.  They serve as a harrowing visual throughline in Terence Davies introspective “Of Time and the City” wherein he dissects his beloved home town of Liverpool (and himself).  Closer to a documentary than any other genre, the blend of archive footage, poetry, classical music and sardonic baritone narration is more mosaic than film.   Mr. Davies chronicles the Merseyside Borough through much of the 20th century heaping on a heathly serving of personal exhibition and social commentary.

While driven by non-linear collages of sight and sound the narrative structure is actually very straightforward, beginning with the Liverpool as Mr. Davies experienced it in his childhood.   Exuding a nostalgia both through the musings of the narration and the grains of the celluloid, this Liverpool is lovingly represented as a simpler time by a series of iconic images.  Overflowing boats cozy up to the ports and lumbering trains snake about their railways as they pour souls into the city.  Hard-working men and women (heavy labor and laundry respectively), and blissfully carefree children make up the model blue collar family (for which Mr. Davies clearly has sympathies for).  Gatherings of fellow Liverpudlians, a football stadium packed with frenzied, white towel waving devotees and the stunningly photographed Grand National (an equestrian-like steeplechase) with leaps that both terrify and amaze, portray Liverpool as a scrappy tight-knit community.

This is interspersed with personal recollections some fond, others painful.  The long carefree days at the beach with “sand in the egg salad” give way to Davies tenuous relationship with Catholicism.  Clearly suspicious of religion from the outset it wasn’t until homosexuality surfaced during adolescence that faith posed a direct contradiction.  This discovery is outlined in a deeply personal segment featuring underground wrestling matches like the ones he secretly attended with guilty fascination.

But it’s not all reminiscence and reflection, nor is it without humor.  As the city matures so too does our host, and with adulthood comes cynicism.  Withholding no disdain for Liverpool’s best known export he openly mocks the Beatles professing his preference for classical music.  He also skewers the royal family in entertaining fashion.  Over footage (color now) of the Queens gaudy coronation Davies quips “The trouble with being poor is that is takes up all of your time.  The trouble with being rich is that it take up everyone elses.”  As the condominiums begin to sprout, the city, like the increasingly pixelated footage, becomes less personal for both Davies and the viewer.  And as we venture into the unemployment crisis of the 70s and 80s what was once a tribute feels more like a cautionary tale.

But Davies does not intend to brand his film with any sort of thesis or message.  Both a love letter and a condemnation it never delves into the indulgent moralizing that can befall passion projects such as these.  “Of Time and The City” is more of an examination of a relationship, that all of us an recognize, with place and time.  And, as it is for everyone, when places change and time passes the connection is more with a memory, concurrently distorting and enriching, than with any tangible object.  Most will categorize this film is as a lyrical poem, and I would have to agree.  Though as times teetering on the edge of self-seriousness, finally, Mr. Davies film is one of deliberate whimsy.   As he recites T.S. Elliot with intense conviction during the opening.   You think, “Is this guy for real?”  The answer, suitably, is yes and no.

“Of Time and the City” is now playing at Film Forum through February 3rd.

Recommendation: The Andromeda Strain (1971)

This 70s paranoia film is a riveting procedural that pulls no punches.  I caught up with it yesterday.  It’s the story of a US bio war fare experiment gone wrong and the 4 scientists trying to get to the bottom of it before the world end.  Based on a novel by the late Michael Crichton, it never gives into sentimentality, or even hints at it.  The first and last 15 minutes feel like a thriller and the middle 105 are like a documentary about medicine.   It may sound dense or hard to follow but it’s not.  The tone is set in a 20 minute sequence which details the exhaustive sterilizing procedure the lead characters must go through before tackling the task at hand.   Though it sounds mind numbing it is miraculously engrossing.   Subtlety, you get to know the characters and their tendencies without being dictated to as the film follows the protocols of these technicians as the try to isolate and identify their adversary.  It’s just like any other political thriller just instead of a corrupt government organization it’s a disease.  With the highest of stakes (end of the world) each new tiny scrap of information is a  major advance in the plot.  Played by mostly unknown actors, for me anyway, this film is a blast.  Recommended for any thinking sci-fi fans out there.

On a side note, it was directed by Robert Wise who should be more recognized for the films he directed.  Sound of Music, West Side Story, The (non-Keanu Reeves) Day the Earth Stood Still, The Haunting (which I haven’t seen but I will now), plus he was the editor of Citizen Kane.  We need to pay attention, this man has made a great contribution to American cinema.

Check this one out.

Oscar nominations, ok I was wrong…

but I was also right! I just watched the nominations announced by, who else, Forrest Whitaker.  I’ve never seen them announced live before since I only started acting like an adult and waking up at a reasonable hour in the last year. It was surprisingly nerve racking, and brisk.  It took 8 minutes to read the names of the nominees in all major categories.  No clips,  no awkward shots of hopeful candidates, just one read after the other.  I could barely process it, I was like, wait, wait, slow down, I’m not ready, no! ahhhhh. I can’t imagine what it’s like for those watching who are in the running.  Mickey Rourke got his name read last, I’m sure his heart skipped a beat.

You can see the nominations here.

So, onto my reaction.  First off, “The Reader”!  What?  I only gave it Kate Winslet supporting actress, which is practically all it didn’t get because she was nominated for Best Actress instead! (which actually helps her a lot, I’ll explain later).  I feel somewhat vindicated for giving “The Reader” a mostly positive review (I’m not comfortable going against Mahnola).  The Reader was also nominated for Adapted Screenplay, Director and Best Picture.  Quoi? This film had so little buzz, not great reviews (52% positive with top critics on rotten tomatoes), and no word of mouth; no one was seeing it (12 mil at box office).  So what happened?  Your guess is as good as mine.

Equally puzzling is the shunning of box office juggernaut “The Dark Knight.”  I predicted (as did others) the caped crusader would be in for Picture, Director and Adapted Screenplay.  “The Reader” basically substituted for “The Dark Knight” in each of those.  Traditionally critically acclaimed films that do huge box office fare great at the Oscars; Lord of the Rings, Titanic, Gladiator.  So rare is the popular film that’s actually that good people go crazy for it.  So why not “The Dark Knight”?  My guess is that comic books still are perceived by some as low-brow adolescent entertainment.  That’s a tough stigma to shed.  Personally, I would’ve liked to see Frost/Nixon left out of Best Picture instead.  Shame on the academy for holding their noses at a great film.

Onto the rest,

Best Director:

All 5 directors of the Best Picture nominees, boring.  Think outside the box people!  With “The Dark Knight” Christopher Nolan made not just one of the best superhero movies ever but as good a crime drama as any in recent memory.  Ron Howard directed a filmed version of an already established play with the same cast!

Best Actor:

Sorry Clint, I would’ve voted for you over Brad Pitt.  This is Mr. Pitts second nomination since “Twelve Monkeys” in 1996.  The academy has desperately been trying to get him nominated since and they finally had an excuse too, never underestimate the value of star power, just ask Julia Roberts. However, they didn’t make the mistake of nominating two undeserving movie stars (Sorry Leo, I’m sure your next Scorsese film will get you there).  Congratulations Richard Jenkins!  But this is Mickey Rourke’s year, he’ll take home the statue.  I’m still rooting for Sean Penn (for once).

Best Actress:

Angelina Jolie for Best Actress in “Changeling,” once again wielding the powers of stardom to procure a nomination.  At least Brad Pitt’s movie is getting a lot of attention, this right here feels like a conspiracy.  One I will get to the bottom of……by blogging.  Angelina bumps Sally Hawkins, which is a bummer, her performance wasn’t one of my favorites but it would have been refreshing to see her on the red carpet.

Speaking of refreshing, my favorite female performance of the year Melissa Leo was nominated!  She bumps Michelle Williams (a pipe dream I guess), and is a real dark horse candidate, think Adrien Brody.  To her benefit Kate Winslet was nominated once for best actress in “The Reader” (not supporting as most were expecting, including me) instead of “Revolutionary Road”  (it’s rare anyone is nominated twice in the same category) Not only is “The Reader” a stronger performance, now she doesn’t have to worry about have the splitting of votes over two nominations problem, a la Julianne Moore in 2002 (her performance in Far From Heaven is one of the more memorable of that year, poor gal).  I’m pretty sure Kate will take this home.  It is a tough category though, Anne Hathaway is also going to make a strong push, and don’t forget about Meryl Streep, I just think there’s consensus that it’s time for Kate Winslet.

Best Supporting Actor:

Shazam! I called them all.  I said I wouldn’t complain and I won’t.  This is a good bunch of performances.  Heath Ledger will join Peter Finch as the only posthumous Oscar winners in the history of the ceremony.

Best Supporting Actress:

Kate Winslet crossing over to best actress for “The Reader” threw a wrench into my predictions.  In her place is Amy Adams for Doubt, I love the actress, her performance in last year’s “Enchanted” was more deserving (retribution for the academy?).  Otherwise I had ’em right, what did I say bout Marisa Tomei?  Since Kate’s gone it’s wide open for Penelope Cruz.  Deservedly so, she’s dynamite in this.  Taraji P. Henson is a dark horse if Benjamin Button starts to win everything.

Original Screenplay:

The only bright spot for me was “In Bruges.”  Otherwise my list looks like it was thrown down a garbage disposal.  My happiest surprise of all the nominations, not just this category, is Courtney Hunt for “Frozen River.”  Coupled with Melissa Leo’s nod people will finally seek out this great film.  Wall E (no complaints there) and Happy-Go-Lucky (odd since it’s widely known to be mostly improvised) are the others noms I didn’t see coming.  The only really upsetting omission is Vicky Christina Barcelona, Woody’s best comedic work in a long while.  And where is Rachel Getting Married?

Adapted Screenplay:

The Reader’s charge out of obscurity foiled me again.  If I had put the Reader in all the places I put “The Dark Knight” I’d be golden.  All the usual suspects are there otherwise.  I give the edge to Benjamin Button, but I really don’t have a strong sense on this one.

Other notables:

Waltz With Bashir vs The Class in best foreign film.  Cinematography nominations are dumb.  The documentary category is stacked, Man on Wire, Encounters at the End of the World, Trouble the Water.

Now the real insanity begins.  I’m sure I’ll have more to talk about regarding the Oscars.  Look for more analysis following the awards on February 22nd.

Nominations: What will be and what should be

The Oscar nominations will be announced tomorrow morning, and while I often profess my disdain for the event I am begrudgingly fascinated by it.  Here are my predictions for what will be nominated, followed by what my picks would be for each category.

Best Picture:

What will be:

Slumdog Millionaire (This year’s Juno, probably will win)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Wasn’t quite what everyone hoped, but pretty close)
The Dark Knight (The failure of other big films to make a splash, Doubt, Revolutionary road, has opened the door for Batman)
Frost/Nixon (Doesn’t have a chance to win but carries a heavy pedigree)
Milk (This is the one I’ll be rooting for, I’m kinda worried the Wrestler may overtake it)

What should be:

I like to consider this category as it originally was called, Best Production.  Best picutre is way too subjective.  Wendy and Lucy was my favorite film of the year, but for very personal reasons.  On the other hand, even tough it wasn’t in my top 10, in terms of excellence in filmmaking The Dark Knight was exceedingly impressive.

Frozen River
The Edge of Heaven
Milk
The Dark Knight
Encounters at the End of the World

Best Director:

Who will be:

Danny Boyle- Slumdog Millionaire (Not his best film, but he deserves a nod)
David Fincher- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Holding that massive production together without losing his way is award worthy)
Christopher Nolan- The Dark Knight (Same as above)
Gus Vant Sant- Milk (So glad he directed this)
Darren Aronofsky- The Wrestler (Same as Danny Boyle)

Who should be:

Kelly Reichart- Wendy and Lucy (Amazing)
Fatih Akin- The Edge of Heaven (Same as above)
David Fincher- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Werner Herzog- Encounter at the End of the World (I would watch Werner Herzog make toast)
Cristian Mungiu- 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (There is obviously a confident directorial hand in this incredible film, see it at your own risk)

Best Actor:

Who will be:

Mickey Rourke- The Wrestler (I wish people weren’t calling this the best performance ever so I could enjoy it more)
Frank Langella- Frost/Nixon (I wish people were giving him more credit so I could stop feeling bad for him)
Sean Penn- Milk (Best of his career)
Clint Eastwood- Gran Torino (The movie isn’t good at all, but he really is fantastic, plus, he’s Clint)
Leonardo Dicaprio- Revolutionary Road (I think Leo will ride Kate’s wake to a nom, just so the Academy can say “Well he’s been nominated so many times,” and give him the Oscar for something he doesn’t deserve in the future)

Who should be:

Sean Penn- Milk
Richard Jenkins- The Visitor (I think he’ll just miss out, I hope he doesn’t, if you haven’t seen this yet, do)
Mickey Rourke- The Wrestler (Yeah, yeah)
Phillip Seymour Hoffman- Synecdoche, NY (Has many great performances to choose from, this gets lost in the crowd)
Benicio Del Toro- Che (If the movie were more accessible it would’ve gotten a largr release and Benicio would’ve gotten the nod)

Best Actress:

Who will be:

Anne Hathaway- Rachael getting Married (Breakout!)
Meryl Streep- Doubt (I wish I could say this was about politics but she really is a blast in this film.)
Sally Hawkins- Happy Go Lucky (I was lukewarm, no doubt she’s great, I may have to give it another chance)
Kate Winslet- Revolutionary Road (Not the best performance she’s ever given but I can’t argue with nominating Kate Winslet.)
Michelle Williams- Wendy and Lucy (I’m crossing my fingers)

Who should be:

Melissa Leo- Frozen River (No Golden Globe nom is her downfall, I would love to see her nominated, but if she is it will be at Michelle Williams’ expense)
Michelle Williams- Wendy and Lucy
Anne Hathaway- Rachael Getting Married
Rosemarie Dewitt- Rachael Getting Married (She’s being listed as a supporting role, I disagree, plus there are too many good female supporting performance this year)
Meryl Streep- Doubt

Best Supporting Actor:

Who will be:

Not my 5 picks but if this was the list I wouldn’t complain.

Josh Brolin- Milk
Heath Ledger- The Dark Knight
Robert Downey Jr.- Tropic Thunder
Michael Shannon- Revolutionary Road
Phillip Seymour Hoffman- Doubt

Who should be:

Javier Bardiem- Vicky Christina Barcelona (What a role he’s on)
Josh Brolin- Milk (Where did he come from? 2 years ago no one had heard of him)
James Franco- Pineapple Express (May get nominated for Milk, congrats for breaking out of the Spider-man slog James!)
Heath Ledger- The Dark Knight (Leaving the theatre, all I could think was that we won’t get a full life of his performances.)
Haaz Sleiman- The Visitor (I don’t know if this is a good performance or a case of hypnotizing charisma)

Best Supporting Actress:

Who will be:

Kate Winslet- The Reader (Need I say more?)
Penelope Cruz- Vicky Christina Barcelona (I think she’s got a good shot at winning if Winslet’s votes are split between 2 categories)
Viola Davis- Doubt (It’s one scene but she knocks it out of the park)
Taraji P. Henson- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (One of the emotional rocks in a film that, while excellent on many fronts, sometimes lacks humanity)
Marisa Tomei- The Wrestler (Never count out Marisa Tomei, the recipient of a one of the greatest head-scratchers in Oscar history.

Who should be:

Kate Winslet- The Reader
Penelope Cruz- Vicky Christina Barcelona (she and Javier Bardiem should win the sexy couple award of the decade)
Taraji P. Henson- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Viktoria Winge- Reprise (A highlight of this great little seen gem)
Hiam Abbass- The Visitor (Lovely)

Best Original Screenplay-

Who will be-

Racheal Getting Married- Jenny Lumet (Family dramas are always good for screenplay and acting awards, plus it’s really good)
Vicky Christina Barcelona- Woody Allen (Woody!)
Milk- Dustin Lance Black (Another strength of this great film)
The Wrestler- Robert D. Seigel (Riding the coattails)
Martin McDonagh- In Bruges (My dark horse pick)

Who should be:

The Edge of Heaven- Fatih Akin (Won best screenplay at Cannes, this fantastic script should be the only one nominated)
Frozen River- Courtney Hunt (Successfully blends genres to become impossible to categorize)
4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days- Cristian Mungiu (The writing is as strong as the direction)
Synecdoche, NY- Charlie Kaufman (If anyone could understand it, it would probably win)
Rachael Getting Married- Jenny Lumet

Best Adapted Screenplay-

Who will be-

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button- Eric Roth (Utilizes the Forrest Gump formula he created to perfection)
Frost/Nixon- Peter Morgan (Stage adaptations are always good bets in the adaptation categories, coming from an already recognized foundation)
Doubt- John Patrick Shanley (See Above)
The Dark Knight- Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer (Turning a comic book movie into a gritty crime drama while still delivering the summer movie goods is an impressive feat.)
Slumdog Millionaire- Simon Beaufoy (Aside from a slightly a preposterous love story the clever structure is the films strength)

Who should be-

Let the Right One In- John Ajvide Lindqvist (an even gutsier genre blend than Frozen River, if this a had slightly higher profile release it would not be ignored)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button- Eric Roth
Che- Peter Buchman, Benjamin A. van der Veen (Didn’t play it safe in the face of a daunting task)
The Dark Knight- Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer
Only 4 picks for me this year.

The Rest:

Benjamin Button and the Dark Knight will battle it out in the technical categories.
Wall E will overtake Waltz with Bashir for Best Animated film.
Man on Wire will win in a great year for documentaries.

Best Cinematography:

I’m always baffled by the picks in this category so I’m not even going to attempt a prediction.  But here’s what I would vote for.

The Fall- Colin Watkinson
Wendy and Lucy- Sam Levy
Paranoid Park- Christopher Doyle, Rain Li
Reprise- Jakob Ihre
Encounters at the End of the World- Peter Zeitlinger

The Photoplay Talkies:

Some specific feats in film this year I’d like to acknowledge.

Special award for outstanding ensemble:

The Edge of Heaven:

Nurgül Yesilçay
Baki Davrak
Tuncel Kurtiz
Hanna Schygulla
Patrycia Ziolkowska
Nursel Köse

I wanted to name them all in the various acting categories but then they would make up 6 of my 10 supporting actor picks. This is a true ensemble, all the performances were so dependent on one another.  No one stands out.  They’re all fantastic.  Certain to be ignored by the academy, I present them with this invisible Photoplay Talkie and my unending respect.  Try to contain your joy.

Special Award for outstanding female ensemble:

The girls in Synedoche, NY.

Catherine Keener-  (also for Hamelt 2 where she basically play the same role)
Samantha Morton-  (Is there aything she can’t do?)
Jennifer Jason Leigh- (Quietly building a strong resume over the last few years)
Michele Williams- (What a year for her)

People always say there are never any good roles women, hence there’s a dearth of strong female peformances.  Well here are 4, in one film.

Special award for unique innovative brilliance: Waltz With Bashir (An animated quasi-documentary, coming-of-age, war film.  Devastating and fascinating from start to finish)

Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

With a great trailer and the reuniting of Brad Pitt and David Fincher, whose last effort was the now classic “Fight Club,” anticipation was high for “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.”  Not being a huge Brad Pitt fan and wary of over-hyped Oscar vehicles, I was wary and kept my expectations in check.

Very loosely based on F. Scott Fitzgerald’s short story chronicling the life of a man who ages backwards, the film is told mostly in flashback by an elderly Cate Blanchett.  On her death bed (inexplicably as Hurricane Katrina approaches), she recounts via dairy a previously untold portion of her life to her daughter (Julia Ormond, still smarting from “First Knight”).  The tale begins in lively 1918 New Orleans with the birth of baby Benjamin at age 75.  Following his mother’s death, his widowing father abandons him on the front steps of retirement home (irony!).  Resembling a raisin with extremities, Benjamin is discovered by the gentle Queenie (a fantastic Taraji P. Henson) a kind black woman who works at the establishment, which is full of doddering white folk.   With almost no apprehension to his “curious” appearance she takes to raising Benjamin as her own.

By the time Benjamin reaches about three odd digital renderings of Brad Pitt’s familiar features start to creep in.  A composite of body doubles, Brad Pitt’s face and CGI stand in until Mr. Pitt himself is able to take over.   The look is strange and, perhaps appropriately, off putting.  Highlights of his adventurous youth include getting drunk and laid, as well as receiving advice much earlier than appropriate for his actual age.  But the most significant encounter during this period is with the crimson-haired Daisy, who will one day grow up to be Cate Blanchett and his primary romantic interest.

At eighteen, looking fifty, he sets sea and the film enters full sweep mode.  Benjamin’s adventures sprawl 70 years and include a wide array of people and places.  The art department is more than up to the task recreating them all in wide shots and large crowds.   Overall, the production design in terms of scope and detail is ravishing.  Enhanced, not overwhelmed, by digital effects, the various sets and costumes are impressively realized with the amber tinge as of an aging photograph.

While the stories outcome is never in doubt, (Benjamin’s gray hair will turn gold, his wrinkles will beget a flawless complextion and he will morph into Brad Pitt) the how proves to be intriguing enough to keep one engaged as they wait for the inevitable.   Particularly in witnessing the stunning incarnations of Benjamin, and Daisy, as they age inversely are staggering, especially in their youth.  In the age of “Transformers” special effects struggle more and more to impress when CGI has unmasked all remaining mystery of movie magic.  The rendering of Cate Blanchett as a professional caliber dancer at 23 is so believable it’s frightening.   The camera is too close to be a body double but not far away enough to be faking the dancing.  It truly begs the question “how did they do that?”

Mr. Fincher has always been adept at enhancing his visual storytelling by utilizing these tools, he did so in last years “Zodiac” as well as the immortal “Fight Club.”  But aside from it’s visual grandeur and specificity this ponderous story is a departure from Fincher’s earlier efforts.  It is much easier to recognize the hand of screenwriter Eric Roth who also penned “Forrest Gump,” comparisons to which are inevitable.  Both title characters are not concerned with leaving their but mark on the world, just finding their place in it.  Thus their quests are not pursuits of success but of acceptance.  These consistencies are not detriments mind you, (though they will be for some).   Tonally, the films are quite different, “Forrest Gump” is told with more whimsy while “Benjamin Button” is more of a mediation.

Unlike Mr. Gump though, here the title character is really more of a prop than anything else, albeit a spectacular one.  There’s an emptiness to Pitt’s that keeps his Benjamin at arm’s length keeping him from becoming more than a story-telling device.  This is not to say he does bad work, his charisma alone is enough to carry such a film.  It’s just that such a vast narrative may have warranted delving a little deeper.  Contrary to Pitt’s enigmatic reserve, Balncett’s Daisy injects the film with a much needed vibrancy and serves as the life blood of the story.  A confirmed superhuman performer, Blanchett is completely believable as someone waiting a lifetime for.  In one enchanting sequence Daisy attempts to seduce Benjamin, dancing in moonlit silhouette.  It’s a perfect marriage of performance and filmmaking.  Fincher brings the sumptuous imagery but, like the mist hovering above the lake behind her, Blancett makes it emanate off the screen.

In perhaps the most memorable section of his travels, Benjamin encounters Elizabeth Abbott (Tilda Swinton), a lonley diplomat’s wife, and has a affair.  This is one of the most beautifully crafted sequences of the film largely due to Swinton’s lovely melancholic presence that intrigues Pitt’s quiet Benjamin.  Developed over a succession of sleepless nights drinking tea this relationship is built on loneliness stemming from Benjamin’s hopelessly unrelatable condition and Elizabeth’s life of personal regrets.  Thinking him a contemporary she confesses her disappointments to the impressionable Benjamin, (making one ponder the wisdom that could potentially be imparted if similar connections could be made in everyday life).  This candid encounter proves vital to Benjamin’s unique understanding of mortality.

Death surrounds Benjamin, particularly in his formative years at the retirement home.  Potentially giving him unparaelled insights into the human psyche.  Unfortunately in the end there is little evidence that his life was any more fulfilling as a reult.  Thus, his odd circumstance is an intriguing, handsomely told yarn rather than the life affirming epiphany it hopes to be.   This lack of substantial revelation may seal it’s fate, for some, as a disappointment.  But you would be wrong to dismiss it on such counts.  Yes, it’s elaborate scheme poses no answers to any of life’s great mysteries, but it’s pleasures are rich and plentiful.  The world of Benjamin Button was one in which I was happy to spend time and one I am eager to revisit, regardless of whether it had a point.

Review: Silent Light

I saw my first new release of 2009 today.  Originally released at Cannes in 2007, I have been hearing about “Silent Light” for almost two years before getting a chance to see it (and I live in New York.)  It’s always daunting going in to a film with so much acclaim.  I don’t mean “Slumdog Millionaire” acclaim, I can prepare myself for that.  I’m talking serious cinephile cred.  “Silent Light” was on both Manohla Dargis and A. O. Scott’s top 10 for 2008 (I don’t know how they fit it in that year if it came out in ’07).  It also appeared on the top 10 of the renowned J. Hoberman from the Village Voice.  That is a must-see if I ever heard one.

The past 2 Januarys have yielded the previous year’s Palme dO’r winner.  After the slew of quality films cramed at the end of the calender year to quality for the Oscars it serves as a nice palate cleanser before the doldrums of January (Film Forum repertory time!).  Both films, “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” in ’08 and “The Wind That Shakes the Barely” in ’07 had the similar acclaim and anticipation (“4 Months” was on A. O.’s top 10 of ’07) and both delivered in spades.  Check them out if you haven’t.

So here was “Silent Light”, not a winner of the Palme (that honor went to “The Class” which will be released at the end of the month) but it was named as the “Jury Prize” winner (I don’t know what that specifically means but it’s Cannes so I’m sure it’s some form of illustrious.)  Having never seen a trailer or read a plot synopsis for “Silent Light” I was going in cold.  All I knew was what I recalled from a NY times podcast why back from Cannes in 2007 when Manohla and A.O. described the first shot of the film, a sunrise, as a breath of fresh air that gladly slowed the pace of the bustling festival.  So there’s a sunrise, that’s all I had.

Well, it was some sunrise.  Holy crap.  The opening of this film is a genuine “wow” moment that will be hard to top this year on the basis of asthetic alone.  It’s good few minutes long, beginning with a black startlit sky and panning down on a faint horizon that appears at first to be a slight discoloration amongst the blackness.  That morphs to a discernable dark blue which then continues through an entire box of crayola crayon colors as the sky, trees, grass and enitre world are illuminated.  Nothing short of breathtaking.

I should mention that this film is directed by Mexico’s Carlos Reygadas, only his 4th feature.  The slowing of time, forcing the viewer to focus on some of life’s everyday happenings is applied throughout.  The story centers around a farmer, Johan (Cornelio Wall), a devoted husband father to his wife and large family yet deeply in love with another woman whom, he says, even compared to his wife when they first met, would have been the better choice. Ouch.

It takes about half and hour for even this much information to reach the viewer.  I could recount most of the plot for this 136 minute film in about 10 sentences.  But do not let that deter you.  The magic of Silent Light is it’s ability to make you lean in an appreciate not just the beauty of a landscape but also the beauty of a father shampooing his daughter’s hair.  Reygadas gives equal attention to all aspects of his world whether it is a father and son heart-to-heart or milking cows.  Every shot of this film could have 5 seconds chopped off it, every one!  You would not lose any information regarding the narrative.  But that extra hour, or whatever all those extra 5 seconds add up to, is where the meat is. The environment, and more importantly, the atmosphere is the driving force of this film.

Played apparently by non-actors, the performances carry a stiffness that feels appropriate for characters who are not adept at expressing themselves.  I will admit though, their restrained communications coupled with the pacing was at times frustrating.  I’m not used to working this hard while watching a film.  I am used to being told what’s happening, not shown.  And on that coin I will say, this film will not be for everyone.  The previous “prize winner’s” I mentioned earlier are film’s of action.  The goals are clear, as are the motivations of the characters.  “Silent Light” is not a film of action, well, not a lot of action, it is a film of stoicism.

That said, if you stick with it you will not be disappointed, as I was most certainly not.  An investment in “Silent Light” will be paid off in the end, and it ends, as spectacularly as it begins.

Review: The Reader

The flaws in the reader are glaring.  A trial examines a character’s involment in the holocaust setting up themes of morality and shame that drive the second half of the film.  How do you come to terms with caring for someone who committed such atrocities?  How does a nation cope with the guilt?  Apparently by exchanging platitudes in a law school classroom debate (led by a competely wasted and bored Bruno Ganz) where the lead character decides to remain silent.   It’s regretable that these flaws serve as the downfall for this film rather than an extension of it’s mediocrity. They would be much easier to swallow that way.  Since the first half of The Reader centers around the most effective human romance story of the year (WallE was a robot).

In 1958 Germany,  fifteen-year-old Michael Berg (a strong David Kross) meets Hana Schmitz (the impeccable Kate Winslet) a kind, stern woman of about 40.  A random act of kindness prompts Michael to nervously return to Hanna’s apartment where she catches him a sneaking a peek at her nylons (ah to be young) and it sends him running.  With no real intentions, or at least no concept how to act on them he returns a second time.  This strange courtship continues until she suddenly makes a pass so forward on paper it would read like a bad porn.  Preposterous, but executed with just the right balance of awkward, erotic and bizarre to make it believable, the lovers embody all the giggling and gasping excitement of a forbidden romance.  Some of the scenes are so explicitly intimate they induce guilty feelings of voyeurism.

Other than the joys of the flesh the activity the two enjoy is literature.  Michael reads his prep school assignments (hence the title) to Hanna in a familiar but very effective montage featuring the luminous face of Winslet absorbing Micheal’s tales.  This serves as a their romantic throughline and is ultimately redeeming in the latter parts of the film.

When summer ends and the relationship fizzles Michael finds himself in Law School.  The “progressive” environment of the 60s takes precedence over what is eating Micheal’s insides.  Sadly, that preference is never returned until we are barely interested anymore.

While sitting in on a Nazi trial for class, Hanna reenters Micheal’s life.  It seems she was a guard at a Nazi camp and she and a number of her compatriots are finally getting justice.  This is where the aforementioned derailment takes place as Micheal is reduced to a slumping prop.  In the presence of a tour-de-force testimony (Winslet resists the usual territory for these types of scenes) without Micheal’s perspective the film turns it’s attentions to the holocaust and it’s affect on the characters and the country.  All this was already on the periphery, I don’t see what was gained by drowning out Michael’s voice.  The scenes border on didactic and are far too on the nose.

The next time Micheal commits any actions of consequence he’s aged into Ralph Fiennes and Hanna is in prison.  With some gestures that could induce gags or sniffles depending on your mood (sniffles for me) the last act is simultaneously compelling and maddening as it turns into a piece about reflection and regret.  It is ironic that the first half of the film shot with shimmering nostalgia and swelling music seemed the most immediate.

Finally, this is a frustrating film that will be categorized with some of the other handsome productions that fell short of their lofty expectations, including Ms. Winselt’s other endeavor “Revolutionary Road,” “Doubt,” and “Frost/Nixon.”

I enjoyed all of these films and would happily revisit them all.  But I generally agree with the consensus that they where just a little too careful to have any lingering impact.  I give more credit to “The Reader” though.  It reaches at some more delicate, ambiguous areas, or I should say approaches them more delicately.  The rush of Michael and Hanna’s first encounter is one I’ll not soon forget.  Or maybe I’m just giving it a pass because I’m in love with Kate Winselt.

Kate’s Big Night

I am so jaded when it comes to award shows.  I find them self-congratulatory, artificial and often nauseating.  However, this was not always the case.  I used to regard the Oscars as a prerequisite for excellence in film before I became wise to their injustices.  “Shakespeare in Love” over “Saving Private Ryan,” Jennifer Hudson, Julia Roberts for “Erin Brockovich” over Ellen Burstyn for “Requiem for a Dream” and the topper, “Crash” over “Brokeback Mountain” (this is the second time I’ve referenced my disdain for “Crash” in the inaugural week of this blog, it won’t be the last).  I became enlightened to their absurdity.

Probing the results of past contests didn’t help the academy’s cause.

1969: John Wayne in True Grit over Richard Burton, Peter O’toole (never won!), & Dustin Hoffman and Jon voight for their performances in Midnight Cowboy.
1974: Art Carney over Pacino and Deniro in godfather II.
1976: this one’s a real stunner, nominated for best picture Network, All the Presidents Men, Taxi Driver. The winner? Rocky. ROCKY! Sure it’s a good film but wow.  Wow.

So Sunday night was the Golden Globes, Oscar’s bratty little cousin.  I went with the less ludicrous option, the premier of 24. Around 10:30 I was waiting for the 11 Sportscenter and flipped over to see final trophies handed out.  After “Vicky Christina Barcelona” winning best comedy (with Woody sadly absent) the award for best actress in a drama was announced. I was surprised to see Kate Winslet win for “Revolutionary Road.”  The film that once seemed poised for awards season success had not been well received.  But what really surprised me was the astonished look on her face when her name was called.  How could someone this accomplished actually put any stake in such a silly popularity contest? This isn’t even the Oscars it’s the Golden freaking Globes!  I quickly checked to see if she’d ever won a Golden Globe before, I knew she hadn’t won on Oscar in 5 tries (another knock against them) but surely a Golden Globe?

Nope, not one.  Tom Cruise has 3!  I later learned that she’d won earlier in the evening for supporting actress, so that partly explained why she was so overwhelmed.  Still though, as she tearfully professed her love and admiration for an also misty Leonardo DiCaprio (whom I generally don’t even like) I felt all my hardened opposition melt away.  Most high paid performers claim it’s about the work, not the fame or money and to that I say “so why is your nose growing?”  But if anyone cares about their craft it’s Kate Winslet and it was clear this meant more to her than a step in the career ladder.  It made me smile and I daresay I was moved.  Before I knew it was thinking, “good for her, she really deserves it, I’m so glad she won.”  Curses!  I had been foiled by the Golden Globes within 5 minutes!

Not to say I don’t still think they are ridiculous, gaudy and indulgent, but I do concede that, in these fleeting moments of sincerity, awards shows can still bring the goods.  I guess.

2008 Top 10

Michelle Williams in "Wendy and Lucy"

I made my first top 10 list a few years ago in 2006 with “Children of Men” in the top spot.  While the rest of the list is kinda embarrassing (Little Miss Sunshine at #3?!), having that list of 10 films is the perfect antidote for those days when it feels like  a cinematic apocalypse is upon you (Wild Hogs made $168 mil at the box office).

It’s hard to remain true to oneself when forming these lists.  You are always going to be influenced by a film’s reputation regardless of what your personal reaction may have been, for example in 2005 someone started a rumor that “Crash” was a good movie and look how that turned out.

I try not to ask myself which films were the best but which ones excited me the most.  The ones that, when I left the theatre,  I didn’t want to listen to my ipod as I walked to the subway.

When it comes to # 1, I say to myself “what movie really knocked me on my ass this year?”  In 2008 that would be “Wendy and Lucy.”  Starring Michelle Williams and a dog, this 80 minute jewel pulverized me.  Recounting the plot is pointless.  Like the best films, the power of Wendy and Lucy is hard to quantify.  There is a moment that I can’t let go of at the end (I won’t give it away) when Michelle Williams comes to a heartbreaking realization that I came to at the exact same moment she did.  I lived that moment with her.  Even now as I’m writing this I get choked up thinking about it.  I don’t know how director Kelly Reichart did it, but it was unforgettable.

A lot of these movies are obscure.  But they are great.  Seek them out, queue them up, impress your friends.  Enjoy!

1. Wendy and Lucy

An almost flawless (I say almost b/c I don’t want to call a film perfect) sliver of life that I need to see a second time to analyze, I haven’t recovered from the first.

2. The Edge of Heaven

Turkish-German director Faith Akin’s “Head On,” was one of favs of 2004, with “Edge” he shoots to the top of my “most-want-to-see-their-next-project” list.  An emotional tale of converging storylines that astutely covers a huge range of social and political issues.  But you won’t realize that until after its over.

3. Encounters at the End of the World

Werner Herzog ‘s truly mesmerizing doc about Antarctica somehow is an exploration of humanity in a place where there are no people.  This film subverts all expectations of a doc about Antarctica.  This is no march of the penguins.

4. Milk

A by-the-numbers telling of this story would still have probably made this list.  The 1984 documentary “The Times of Harvey Milk” was one of my most emotional movie-watching experiences this year.  But Sean Penn (in my opinion the best performance of his career) and Gus Van Sant elevate it past bio-pic standards.

5. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

Devastating abortion thriller from Romania.  I remember the acting, art-direction, cinematography, script, and editing all being specifically remarkable. One those amazing films you don’t ever want to see again.  Probably why it isn’t higher.

6. Frozen River

A single mom struggles to make ends meat and hold her family together.  Think you’ve seen it?  You haven’t.  Simultaneously a character study and a thriller, this one’s a blast.   Melissa Leo gives best female performance of the year.

7. Man on Wire

Doc about the dude who tight roped across the twin towers done in the style of a heist film.    This is the surest bet of the year; no one will dislike this film.  Another example of an already great story being “elevated” to even greater “heights.” Bad-pun unintended.

8. Rachel Getting Married

Done in a style I think was interesting 15 years ago and starring an actress I was apathetic towards at best, this movie and Anne Hathaway completely blindsided me.  The ensemble is spot on, the fly-on-the-wall camera achieves vérité without being distracting and the story unfolds in deceptive and surprising ways.  Bravo.

9. Let the Right One In

A Swedish, coming of age, vampire, love story.  It’s really good, really.  I generally don’t like horror films but there were moments in this that made me giggle out of fear.  Plus it was great be able to recommend an alternate teen-vampire movie when “Twilight” came out.

10. Reprise

I rotated a few films through the 10th spot.  Reprise is a debut feature from Danish filmmaker Joachim Trier that crackled with young creative energy.  I left the theatre feeling electrified and motivated.  A feeling I didn’t want to let go of.

Honorable Mention:

Waltz with Bashir

Synecdoche, NY

The Visitor

Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Slumdog Millionaire

Paranoid Park

Role Models

Vicky Christina Barcelona

My Winnipeg

Be Kind Rewind

The Dark Knight

Flight of the Red Balloon

Don’t believe the hype

With an overwhelming slate of good films being released this time of year the average movie goer needs a way to find some clarity.  What do you see out of a bunch of supposed must-sees?   In recent years it has become somewhat of a trend for a film to separate itself from the pack.  A perfect storm of reviews, word-of-mouth and platform releases will turn some lower profile film into a blockbuster.

Juno, Little Miss Sunshine, Sideways, Finding Neverland, Lost in Translation, are previous examples of this phenomenon.   But as word of mouth snowballs this, as it is often called, little film that could is branded with unreasonably high expectations. Over the course of the awards season the general public will, for once, abandon it’s reliance on sequels and remakes and flock to these, funny, touching, well-made films.  But after begin bludgeoned with superlatives from all aspects of the media (thanks Peter Travers) they will often leave disappointed.  Where was the transcendent masterpiece that was promised?  I’d feel cheated too.

In the end, sure, the movie makes money (Juno $143 mil!).  But it is remembered by many as not living up to the hype.  I’m sure the studios are happy to take the money and run and who can blame them.  But there is too much crap out there for a perfectly good movie to receive this kind of treatment.   Keep it in perspective people.  It’ll be February soon, enjoy quality while it’s still here.