Oscar Time!

Whoa, so the Oscars sure came up fast.  Is it just me or are people kinda “meh” about the them this year?  I feel like I haven’t had (or randomly engaged in uninvited) nearly as many conversations regarding them as in past years.  I do know that in terms of box office the traditional bump films get as a result of being nominated has been largely nonexistent.  The only film that seems to to have benefited is “The Reader,” which has doubled it’s take since being nominated.  But at 19 million in today’s prices maybe, what, 30 people have gone to see it?

Still the Oscars are the Oscars and for all my berating I still love them.  Since 2005’s loss of innocence (damn you “Crash”!) I maybe haven’t held them in as high a regard, but I still acknowledge them, for better or for worse, as an great annual celebration of films.  And how is a guy blogging about movies not going to pay attention to that.

So how about some predictions?  As I said it’s pretty boring this year, I think many of the categories are easy to pick.  I’ll run through the major ones.

Best Picture – Slumdog Millionaire

If Benjamin Button were a little better received it would win by default but since the entire world seems to have caught Slumdog fever I think it’s pretty much a lock.  I would love to see “Milk” pull out an upset but it doesn’t seem to have any momentum going.  It’s kinda sad, you’d think “Brokeback Mountain’s” breakthrough in ’05 would’ve been the perfect setup for a film like “Milk” not to mention it coming in on the coattails of Obama’s air of hope and change, which producers never could have anticipated.  Maybe if “Crash” hadn’t beat out Brokeback in ’05 for Best Picture things would be different.  Ok, I’ll stop hating on Crash now.  Ummmmm, no I won’t.  I hate you Crash.

Best Actor – Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler

It just seems unanimous.  This one frustrates me a little because I think he’s great in this, really great.  But I don’t think he’s as incredible as everyone is making him out to be.  So even though I dug his performance I’m always on the dissenting side of conversations.  In the end, he’s playing a character that is dealing with some things that must be very close to Mr. Rourke’s experiences.  And while there’s nothing wrong with that, for my money, Sean Penn in “Milk” had to create that person from scratch within himself.  And you can bet that, for Penn, the affable persona of Harvey Milk took some digging.

Best Actress – Kate Winslet, The Reader

It’s not a great film but Kate Winslet is easily one of the two best actresses named Kate on the planet (and the best to spell it with a K).  She’s been nominated 5 times before and while there are no travesties in the people who won the phrase: Helen Hunt and Halle Berry beat out Kate Winslet for an Oscar just doesn’t sound right.  Personally I’d love to see Melissa Leo win for her fantastic work in “Frozen River” but I’d be bummed if Kate was ousted a 6th time.

Best Supporting Actor – Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight

How bad do you feel for everyone else in this category?  Do you think they’re more worried that they might actually win than anything else?  What would someone like Michael Shannon say?  Who’s Michael Shannon?  Exactly.  In all seriousness, Heath does deserve to win for his unforgettable work as the Joker.  As I’ve said before, coming out of “The Dark Knight” my overriding feeling was sadness that we wouldn’t get another 40 years of his performances.

Best Supporting Actress – Penelope Cruz, Vicky Christina Barcelona

She’s as much a lock as anyone.  The film has some large flaws (one of them is named Scarlett Johansson) but Cruz is such a firecracker in her role as a passionate/insane artist you forget about everything else when she’s onscreen and when she’s offscreen you’re just thinking about when she’ll be back.  I really couldn’t see anyone breaking through here.  Cheers Penelope.

Best Director – Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.  Are there actually people evaluating direction in the Academy?  It’s feels like when deciding the Directing nominees they just ctrl+c the Best Picture noms and paste them in the Directing category.  This year all 5 nominated Directors had their films nominated for Best Picture as well.  In the last 5 years only 3 directors have been nominated whose film wasn’t.  Boring.  Don’t get me wrong, Danny Boyle’s great and I’ll be happy to see him win.  This category just seems uninspired.

Best Original Screenplay -Wall E

This one’s tough.  I’m going with “Wall E” because there’s been some backlash stemming from it’s Best Picutre snub.  I think this’ll be offered up as a consolation.  However, the same thing could happen for “Milk” since it probably won’t win anything else.  To which I offer “The Simspons” reference: boo-urns.  Or “Happy-go-Lucky,” another well received but under represented film.  Basically I have no idea so I’m just listing the nominees to take up space so I can move on.  It could be “In Bruges” or “Frozen River” you never know!

Best Adapted Screenplay – Slumdog Millionaire

I say a clean sweep.  But Benjamin Button certainly has a shot.  As I mentioned above the screenplay categories are often reserved as consolations for films that don’t take home the big prize.  “Juno,” “Sideways,” “Lost in Translation,” “Little Miss Sunshine,” “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.”  You know looking at this list, these are all films of the same ilk, got great reviews, did great business, loved by all but ultimately deemed not “important” enough for Best Picture.  Coincidence?  The Oscars: exposed.

Odd and Ends

“Wall E” is a lock for animated film (despite “Kung Fu Panda” randomly winning “The Annie” award a couple weeks ago).  The spectacular “Man on Wire” should pick up best doc.  I think Pixar’s “Presto” will win animated short but I’d like to see Japan’s wonderful “Maison en Petits Cubes” pull out an upset in the highly anticipated category.  In foreign film I’ve only seen 2 and I’m torn.  Both “The Class” (please read my novel, I mean, review I posted couple weeks ago) and “Waltz With Bashir” are decidedly great films.  I think Bashir has a little more buzz surrounding it so I’ll make that my pick, but for sure, check them both out.

Who’s excited for Sunday!  I’ll post my reactions to the winners, losers, all the glitz and glam, and that delicious Hugh Jackman sometime next week.

Brief, But Brilliant

I’ve been meaning to catch the Oscar nominated shorts since IFC started screening them in back 2005 and I finally got around to it this past Thursday.  They’re split into two presentations, live-action and animated.  I went with the animated out of pure convenience.  The program consisted of the 5 nominated shorts and 5 acclaimed shorts, I’m assuming the latter 5 are to bump up the running time to get you your moneys worth.

Short films are a grossly under appreciated medium.  I think the internet may be the tool to remedy that but for now they toil mainly in film festival purgatory, largely unavailable to the general public.  On the rare occasion that I happen to check some out I’m constantly amazed at the clout a good short can have.  2006’s “Paris, je t’aime,” a collection of shorts from various directors centered on the iconic city, was one of the more memorable films I’ve seen in the last few years, even though I saw it on a plane.  Alexander Payne’s (director of “Election”, “About Schmidt” and “Sideways”) final piece “14th arrondissement” is particularly wonderful.

Still, my short film viewing leaves much to be desired and my most recent encoutner with them has confirmed that.  My appreciation for the medium was renewed once again by several of the great shorts featured in this program.  And some of them are online.

John and Karen

I’ve actually seen this before, it was randomly featured in front of “Encounters at the End of the World” (another great film).  John and Karen wasn’t nominated for an Oscar (add it to the long list of snubs) but it is an absolute delight.   At only 3 minutes, it’s the shortest masterpiece I’ve ever seen.  Any plot explanation will dull the brilliance, just go and see your yourselves.

Oktapodi

Another mini-gem that comes in a minute shorter than John and Karen.  It’s basically a CGI chase sequence featuring some octopi and it’s quite a ride.  Perhaps more impressive is how well it compares to the Pixar juggernaut, as it’s operating in territory usually dominated by them.  Fast and fun, check it.

La Maison En Petits Cubes

At 12 minutes this had a bigger emotional impact on me than most films.  I’m not much of a crier, I could count on one hand the films that made the theatre a little dusty in 2008, but for some reason this one got to me.  With a beautiful animation style reminiscent of the old Winnie the Pooh drawings and a mystifying concept “Cubes” was quite a revelation for me.  Unfortunately the link is to a 30 second clip that will only whet your appetite.  But keep it in mind.  The shorts should be released on DVD soon.  Queue it up.

Those were my favorite 3 but the whole program was definitely time and money well spent.  I’m hoping catch up with the live action and report on those soon.  But I really encourage everyone to go out and see this stuff.   I guarantee it will be a unqiue and satisfying trip to the cinema.  Plus you’ll have a real leg up in your Oscar pool.

The Original Blockbuster

I happened to catch the second half of “Jaws” on TV the other day.  I’ve seen it probably about 5-7 times, but not in the last year. I came in at the scene where they’re cutting the shark in half at Brody’s house.  Oh cool, I’ll watch until they find the license plate.  But before I could even think about turning to something else, Richard Dreyfuss was underwater at night, examining a hole in the hull of an abandoned boat.  Well, it’s not like I wasn’t going to watch the dead guy’s head pop out.  And from then on I was screwed.  “You are going to ignore this particular problem until it swims up and bites you in the ass!”. “We’re going to need a bigger boat.” The scar battle, USS Indianapolis, shark cage, smile you son of a…boom!  How good is that movie?  I mean seriously.  Has to be one of the most watchable movies ever.

While reveling in it’s mastery I was reminded of the impact “Jaws” made on the film industry when it was released and it rekindled some thoughts I have on the subject.  Arriving in 1975, the New Hollywood movement in full swing film and American film was at an impressionable juncture.  Finally liberating itself from the shadow cast by the production code and the Ed Sullivan show, like the French and Italians before them, Americans now too had their new cinema.  Films like “Bonnie and Clyde,” “Easy Rider,” “The Graduate” and “Midnight Cowboy” closed out the sixties, giving way to the 70s and the emergence of Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Altman, and yes George Lucas with great films like the “Godfather,”  “Mean Streets,” “MASH” and Lucas’ “American Graffiti” (so ironic) to name just a few.  This crusade not only drastically changed the way films were made but how they were seen.  With more attention paid to the artistic aspects of filmmaking a new generation found themselves engaged in cinema with a passion not seen since the golden age of the 1940s.  Smaller, independent production companies were churning out groundbreaking films and the public was eating them right up.

So along comes Jaws, a troubled production, due largely to a malfunctioning Shark, helmed by a largely unknown Director, the obscenly young Steven Spielberg.  It’s release on June 20th was remarkable in itself.  Up to this point film distribution was done on a much smaller scale compared to today’s standards.  Beginning with a handful of theatre in major cities a film would gradually accumulate screens as word of mouth spread.  Here, MCA executive Sidney Sheinberg gambled by opening Jaws on 409 theatres across the country making it the first wide release in film history.  This was coupled with a nation wide marketing campaign that was aimed at raising awareness and elevating the release to something of an event.  Suffice it to say, Sheinberg’s strategy paid off and the blockbuster was born.  “Jaws” was the first film to surpass $100 blowing by “The Exorcist” to become the highest grossing film of all time.   “Jaws” was a bona fide phenomenon and the film industry has never looked back.  Event films are now the cornerstone of big studio business.  This past summer “The Dark Knight” opened in 4,366 theatres and grossed $100 in two days.

There are some people, myself included, who view this blockbuster mindset as an exercise in cinematic mediocrity.  The films, to attract the biggest audience, are as broad as possible and their chief goal is a huge opening weekend.   The profits of a film are dived between the studio and the theatre.  The first two weeks of a films run are the weeks the studio gets it’s biggest piece of the pie, as time goes on the theatre takes an increasingly larger ratio.  So basically, studios pump up the marketing, get everyone to turn out on opening weekend, the movie stinks, but they’ve already made their money so who cares?  I acknowledge this opinion is littered with exceptions but I still think it’s a fair assumption.

Now, there are also some people (looking for someone to blame perhaps) that accuse “Jaws” of being the catalyst of this trend.   And contend that it’s like-minded kin, “Star Wars,” “Indiana Jones,” “Jurassic Park,” have permanently cemented reliance on the big budget drivel we’re exposed to every summer.  “These films have obliterated the dignity of American film and spawned the demise of the New Hollywood!”  Author Peter Biskind actually wrote best selling book called “Easy Riders and Raging Bulls” that showcases this philosophy.  Well to Mr. Biskind and all the other haters out there I say, *fart noise*.

You know what, if all blockbusters were half as good as “Jaws” we’d still be in a new wave, but by now it wouldn’t be new.  We’d just be in a wave.  Or maybe it wouldn’t even be a wave, it would just be the way movies are.  Good.  If a movie costs a lot of money or makes a lot a money that doesn’t make it bad.  What makes a movie bad is a studio exec looking to cash with a string of poor imitations.  Case in point, look at the epic craze that took over after “Lord of the Rings” took the world by storm.  You wouldn’t blame Peter Jackson for “Troy”, “Alexander” and The “Golden Compass” would you? (Although I wouldn’t mind a personal apology from Brad Pitt).

Film represents different things to different people. There are those who see it as pure entertainment and others a sophisticated art form.  Except for the extreme members of each party (I’m speaking to the fans of the “[insert genre] Movie” franchise and a large percentage of Film Forum’s audience), I think it’s healthy to subscribe to both.  Growing up a movie obsessed kid I watched “Superman” and “Ghostbusters” practically on repeat, and now I myself am a frequenter of Film Forum.  I just think a good movie is a good movie.  It can cost $5,000 or $250,000,000.   To quote a line from “Ratatouille” (shut up I love that movie) “Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere.”  So lay off Spielberg (unless it’s for “Indiana Jones 4”).  And if you didn’t have problem with him to begin with, watch “Jaws” again.  Just remember, don’t hate the player, hate the game.

Review: The Class

After watching the trailer for “The Class” you may think you’ve already seen it.  Dedicated teacher writes his name on chalkboard, unruly students chide him for it, dedicated teacher cleverly retorts, unruly students laugh, dedicated teacher gains their respect.  Eventually, dedicated teacher will inspire unruly students, despite being minorities and coming from dysfunctional households, to strive for a future beyond gangs and drugs and, just to round things out, dedicated teacher will learn something about himself along the way.  Sound familiar?

This formula has been beaten to death, perhaps most memorably by Michelle Pfeiffer in the oh so 90s “Dangerous Minds” (the tagline was:  She Broke The Rules… And Changed Their Lives.  Yikes.)  Also by the desk-standing triumph of Robin “O Captain my Captain” Williams in the sadly very dated “Dead Poets Society.”  And most recently by Hilary “I either give Oscar winning performances or make terrible movies” Swank in “Freedom Writers” (which, to be fair, I have not seen, and never will).  So what could possibly be so great about this one that it deserves the Palme d’Or it won at Cannes last April?  Because it’s in french?  Sorry, you can put lipstick on a VP candidate, but it’s still going to be a pig (zing!).  Ok, I’ll calm down.  Obviously I had a lot of, perhaps unfair, reservations going into this film.  I didn’t necessarily think it would be bad mind you, but I was skeptical it could live up to it’s unanimously rapturous acclaim.  I expected a solid, well-made, superior version of it’s like-minded predecessors that didn’t cover any new territory.

How wrong I was.

Writer/director Laurent Cantet and writer/lead actor François Bégaudeau have (hyperbole alert) made the most insightful, thought-provoking film about education I have ever seen.  Before discussing, may I just say the marketing team should be ashamed of themselves.  If it hadn’t won the Palme d’Or I would have totally overlooked it, and that would have been a shame.  They are sending the wrong message, this is no story about a superhuman teacher.

François Marin, a geekier, fenchier version of Daniel Craig, played by François Bégaudeau (who wrote the autobiographical novel on which the film is derived and, based on his excellent performance, has no inhibitions playing a character so close to himself) quietly sits with his coffee.  He is framed almost from behind and his mood is difficult to read.  The quiet pensive moment could one of reflection, frustration, relaxation.  It’s as if Cantent is saying, look, this guys got a lot going on but we’re not going to tell you what.  It is the first, last and only scene to take place outside the walls of the school (appropriately, the direct translation of the french title “Entre Les Murs” is “Between the Walls”).

It’s the first day of classes at this unnamed inner-Parisian Junior High School.  At a politely uncomfortable pre-year meeting we are introduced to the faculty, a group that has their own strange a classroom dynamic.   Each member states their subject and tenure (François’ teaches French and is in his 4th year), the only personal information about them we will learn, before heading to class.

François’ has no impact on the cacophony of overlapping conversations as he enters the room and the task of getting the class silent is met with resistance, as are all tasks.  From simple requests, “why do we have to write down our names if you already know them?” to the value of the curriculum, “nobody uses the subjunctive when they talk in everyday life,” the students turn their teacher into a modern day Sisyphus.  To combat this opposition, François’ takes an informal approach.  Not unlike his cinematic predecessors he attempts to engage the students with a more conversational than didactic style in hopes of gaining their trust and forming a connection.  But whereas, say, Michelle Pfeiffer’s students eat it right up, François’ students often use it against him.  Though he may be talked to like a peer he is rarely treated like one.  And while the buddy tactic has its merits, the students laugh at as his jokes and genuinely seem to like him, it blurs the authoritative line into a thin gray one.

Any and all discipline is very difficult.  In one incident, Rachel (one of the more intriguing, prominently featured students), repeatedly refuses to read aloud in class.  When François keeps her after and demands an apology, rejecting any he deems untruthful, Rachel is unthreatened, more concerned with the infringement on her afternoon plans.  After he finally accepts her apology as genuine, Rachel quickly rescinds it as she walks out the door.  This type of infuriating confrontation is one in an unending chain that equate François’ job to pushing full force up against a brick wall.  Clearly a dedicated teacher, what motivates his stiff resolve remains a confounding mystery.

Taking place over the course of one full school year, we gradually become acquainted with the individual students and the specific challenge each poses.  The chosen method to attack these challenges, however, is in dispute.  The benefit of punishment and praise is debated throughout the film in faculty meetings where staff members support contradicting tactics.  Watching them tackle these delicate issues doesn’t instill any envy for them.  After pondering my own opinions on the subjects discussed I was forced to reconsidered the better part of my own time spent in a classroom.

In the films last third, where it most resembles a traditional narrative, the challenges facing the administration become more complex.   Souleyman, at times a promising but frequently impertinent student, charges out of class, after François physically attempts to stop him, and inadvertently injures another student.  To complicate matters, before the incident François, in a moment of frustration, insulted two girls during a heated exchange.  The fallout tracks the decision of whether to expel Souleyman.  François’ involvement throws an additional wrench into the mix as he and his fellow staff members weigh the consequences expulsion will have on the boy’s future given his tenuous life at home, against the consequences of allowing him to remain in class.  Despite the outcome, ethically, there is no clear solution and that is the conclusion Cantet and Bégaudeau are after.  There is no right answer.

This inconclusive subject matter is perfectly married with the film’s unique look and feel.   Forgoing the conventional use of wideshots to establish a scene within a time and place, there are no inter-titles denoting the season or how much time has passed.  Cantet sets the camera up close on the actors faces, rarely any wider than a midshot, and keeps the action in the classroom.  This creates an unrelenting pace that flows from day to day leaving little space to breathe in between.  With no scenes cluing us in on François’ hopes and dreams or the details of Souleyman’s violent father, Cantet merely presents the events of the film without putting them in any sort of context.  This not only makes the 128 minute running time fly by, but by not commenting it forces the viewer to be objective.  Surprisingly by the films end, despite this arms length approach, the attachment that wasn’t being forced upon you has been deceptively instilled.  For a film seemingly so adverse to sentimentality, it yields some very moving ineractions, particularly in the final encounters.

At the center of this bold style are the, across the board, splendid performances from a group of non-actors playing versions of themselves (all the characters keep their real names).  The classroom scenes in particular have a striking feel of vibrant spontaneity (much of the film was improvised) where not a single moment rings false.  Credit Cantet for creating an environment that, with three cameras going at once, allowed these kids to perform at such high levels, to produce a multitude of fascinating moments.

But fascinating as it is, this vivid reality they’ve created doesn’t really generate a thesis, and it doesn’t intend to.   “The Class” is more of an open examination that only asks questions.  And while some of the questions may have been asked before.   Never, in my experience, have they been so clearly illustrated.  I think, particularly, teachers who have lived the reality this film depicts will appreciate that.  I was constantly reminded of a friend of mine, while watching this film, who at one time taught 10th grade English at a High School in the Bronx.  Furiously passionate about his job he would recount to me his frequent feelings of futility.   “I have a “Dangerous Minds” moment at least once a day,” he’d explain. “Someone will come up to me after class and say ‘Mista, you’re the only teacher I’ve ever had who really believes in me’.”  “And then the next day” he continued, “they’ll come in not having done their homework.”

Damn.  If only he could’ve gotten them to stand on their desks.

5 Oscar Movies That Rock

It’s a hassle to go to the movies.  It’s expensive, ($12.50 in NYC!) inconvenient, (in many cases the living room couch is a much better option) and annoying (you call that a whisper?) Side note: an advantage of movie-going in NYC is whenever someone talks they are met with the vocal equivalent of being drawn and quartered by a surly lot of senior citizens.

All of this can make catching up with all the Oscar films a daunting mountain to climb.  Especially if you wait until after the nominations to start watching.  While some people feel the need to catch up with all of the nominated films so they can avoid the mortifying conversation exit line “I haven’t seen it yet” (or am I the only one mortified in that situation?), others just want to see some good movies.  And as we all know, an nomination does not a good film make (Crash).  So the question is do you want to see every movie nominated for an Oscar (better queue up Kung Fu Panda!), or just the good ones?

If your answer is the latter here are 5 films, currently in the running for an Oscar, that really deserve to be.  Not to say that the Frost/Nixon’s out there aren’t enjoyable, but they are also very rent-able.

Milk Milk, Milk, Milk!  Gus Vant Sant’s film about Harvey Milk, the first gay elected official in US history is a biopic of sorts, dealing with the period of Harvey’s life leading up to his election and time in office.  There is no reason for not seeing this.  Right now it’s playing in a couple hundred theatres so there’s probably a screening somewhat nearby.  Especially if you don’t know this incredible story, “Milk” is required viewing.  Sean Penn is, and I don’t say this lightly because he usually rubs me the wrong way , fan-freaking-tastic as Harvey Milk.  There’s not a hint of the heavy handedness that I think plagues some of his other work (great Sean, you can emote, yay), Harvey Milk is portrayed as the joyful, charismatic, inspiring man that he was.   I never thought I’d say this, but in this movie, I just wanted to jump through the screen and give Sean Penn a big hug.

Rachael Getting Married Anne Hathaway is up for best actress and rightfully so.  Jonathan Demme (back from his obscure documentary sabbatical) crafts a perfectly pitched familial turf war.  With a not too jerky hand held camera it has an almost improvised feeling but it is anything but.  Screenwriter Jenny Lumet (daughter of Sidney) deftly develops her characters, even the minor ones, without drawing too much attention to them.  The group scenes when the narrative seems to disappear are where the film really shines.  By the end I felt like I was watching two dear friends getting married and I felt all the emotions that go along with that.  Anne Hathaway as the family time bomb is ruthless, Rosemarie Dewitt in the title role nails the very difficult-to-play overlooked sister and Bill Irwin as the doting father caught in the middle is, for lack of a more dynamic phrase, just great.  See it!

Waltz With Bashir– Up against some tough competition in the foreign film category, namely Palme d’Or winner “The Class” (look for my review in the coming days), this animated-doc/memoir by Ari Folman would have nothing to be ashamed of in defeat.  With a combination of cell, flash and digital animation, Mr. Folman explores the hazy memories (and nightmares) from his experiences as a young Israeli soldier in the first Lebanon war.  Flipping between talking (animated) heads and artful recreations we follow him as he pieces together his past.  This device is the perfect way to tell his story, removing the viewer with more surreal images that evoke rather provoke.  Only at the end does Mr. Folman drive the horror of the events home leaving us with the chilling reality of what haunts him.

Frozen River– I’ve championed this already, but it warrants repeating.  Courtney Hunt comes out of nowhere with her unclassifiable film about a mom having a really really bad week.  Melissa Leo as Ray Eddy gives a ferocious performance, from the films opening moments, a closeup, she gives you everything you need to know.  Taking place near a Mohawk reservation on New York’s border with Quebec, a series of unfortunate events leads to Ray ‘s befriending of a teenage Mohawk (a very good Misty Upham) and smuggling illegal immigrants across the border which is, you guessed it, a frozen river.  Set in a frigid version of John Ford’s America beautifully captured by Cinematographer Reed Morano, what starts out as an indie drama about single mom soon becomes into a taught thriller.  Great entertainment.

The Docs:

Encounters at the End of the World, Man on Wire, Trouble the Water

Even though we’ve seen an increase in the number of documentaries being released, thanks to Michael Moore’s demonstration of their box office potential, they remain among the most underrated films year in and year out.  The documentary category is so stacked this year and I’ve only seen three of the five, two of which were in my top 10.  I’ve already written about “Encounters,” Werner Herzog’s existential nature film about Antarctica, and “Man on Wire” (the front-runner), a heist thriller recounting the man who tightrope-walked between the twin towers.  Both fantastic.

“Trouble the Water,” a criminally under-seen film, is one I have not mentioned thus far.  A first hand account of hurricane Katrina, Kimberly Roberts and her husband Scott Roberts stayed through the storm capturing the waters rising around them with a video camera.  Upon seeing the footage, filmmakers Carl Deal and Tia Lessin followed them through the aftermath as they, like so many others, tried to put their lives back together.  In this age of political documentaries “Trouble the Water” side steps some of the usual conventions by resisting  pointing fingers and keeps the focus on Kimberly and Scott.  Kimberly, being an aspiring rapper, really makes the movie sing (literally and metaphorically).  She is a force of such raw energy and perseverance that this devastating story in the end is brimming with life.

There you go, only 20 days left!  Get to it!

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.