A worthwhile investment

“Melancholia” is a movie directed by Lars von Trier and stars Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbour, and Keifer Sutherland.  It’s the story of the reaction of two sisters to the impending collision of the earth with another planet.  Never mind the whole planet collision gimmick, but rather focus on the main characters.  Dunst plays Justine, a woman with a major depression.  She makes her wedding a fiasco with her hopelessness and helplessness.  She is anhedonic and, at times, almost catatonic.  She drives her new husband away at the conclusion of her wedding.    Justine’s sister Claire is together and strong.  Yet when faced with impending doom, their strengths become weaknesses and their weaknesses become strengths.

 

The cinematography is beautiful.  The soundtrack mostly relies on the beautiful Prelude to “Tristan and Isolde” by Wagner, but it is punctuated at times with a low rumbling.  It is very effective.

Dunst is superb.  If she doesn’t get nominated for one of the major awards, I will be greatly disappointed.  She understands depression and how devastating it can be.  Of course, it’s no coincidence that the name of the planet taking aim at earth is called Melancholia. 

This movie has yet to be released to theaters, but is having a preliminary showing OnDemand.  This is a great film, save the action taken by Sutherland’s character that seems contrived.  But it worth spending two hours to understand how our strengths and weaknesses are two-edged swords, depending on the circumstances.  

A poor investment

I am one of the few people who have gone to see the Taylor Lautner film-“Abduction.”  I went because it was filmed in Pittsburgh and I want to see how the hometown looks in a movie.  I have no idea why others would go.  The story is about how a young man finds out that his parents were not his birthparents and that somehow it relates to some international espionage thing.  I couldn’t really follow it but no matter.  Lautner seems like a nice person, but he simply doesn’t have the gravitas to enable him to carry an entire picture.  His voice sounds a bit boyish, but he does have great biceps, His girlfriend is played by Lily Collins.  She has hairy eyebrows and hair that has that needs-to-be-washed look. Her father is Phil Collins, but he wasn’t in the movie.  John Singleton was the director and he wasn’t in the movie either. Alfred Molina plays a heavy because he is heavy.

The house where Lautner’s character lives is located in the Mt. Lebanon suburb of Pittsburgh.  The house appears to be mid-century but is decorated with cheap round lights from IKEA.  Really.

A particularly funny portion of the movie involves the two lead characters taking a train from Pittsburgh to Omaha.  That would take just short of a week, given the train schedules of both cities.

The cinematography is pretty bad.  The colors are over saturated with little softening of the focus.  Thus, on close-ups, it’s plain to see that Lautner needs Pro-Activ, even when his skin is covered with makeup.

In one scene, our leads must swim into one of the famous Pittsburgh rivers.  After their dunking, they fall asleep on the shore of the river.  The next morning they wake up but now they are beside a rust colored stream.  Who is responsible for continuity? The two also are running through a wooded area and just at the margin of the shot are two discarded tires.   Couldn’t they have picked them up before the shot? 

So how does the ‘Burgh look?  Actually I didn’t think it looked so good.  Because of the style of photography I thought it looked sort of like Mr. Lautner’s complexion, that is, it needed bit of soft focus.   It’s fun to watch how filmmakers juxtapose areas in a city that are nowhere near each other, or how buildings that have one use are made to have another for the storyline.  I noticed also that many of the close-ups were angled to take advantage of the city’s great architecture.  I will give Singleton credit for that anyway. 

I realize that watching this movie cost me 2 hours that I will never get back. 

Need an adjustment?

“The Adjustment Bureau” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adjustment_Bureau) is a fantasy staring Matt Damon as David Norris and Emily Blunt as Elise Sellas.  It was interesting to see a movie where the two main characters each have a chin cleft.  You just don’t see that much anymore.  Blunt is absolutely beautiful.  I have seen her before, but in “Bureau” she is a knock out.  Her character, Elise, is a dancer and has one or two scenes that highlight Blunt’s sculpted body and dance acumen.  Apparently she has never been a dancer, so she had to have a crash course in Terpsichore.  Check out her walk in those extremely high heels- beautiful. 

The movie itself deals with the notion of free will and how somebody or other must intervene from time to time to keep things on plan.  Now, if someone has made a plan for our collective lives, then the notion of free will is sort of out the door.  Yet, in spite of this conundrum, the movie works.  It attempts to show the power of love against the forces of the universe.  I bet live would not be so successful however with the banks in the US that seem to above even the laws of the universe. 

There is much to like in the performances of Blunt and Damon.  She is flirty and seductive.  He is upwardly mobile but has had some lapses in judgment that jeopardized his political career.  Damon does have a kind of wounded style that makes his characters sympathetic.  There is one scene, though, where the two are in bed with heavy-duty shadows.  I did notice the clefts, so I am pretty sure it was them.  They share a kiss that looks like one of the great failures in cinema lovemaking.  It does not look passionate or convincing.  I understand that Tom Cruise had to be coached by director Stanley Kubrick on how to be warm toward Nicole Kidman during the filming of “Eyes Wide Shut.”  Where is Stanley when we needed him for Matt?

Finally, New York is like a third character in the film.  It looks dramatic and beautiful. We don’t seem much of its grittier areas, but there is no particular reason that we should have. 

I liked this film but I am a sucker for well done romances.  “Portrait of Jennie” is another fantasy romance that I like a lot, even though it was made some 50 years ago.  I do not believe that there is some senior-level executive that controls our lives and as Tyler Perry said, “I can do bad all by myself.”  On the other hand I do think that there are institutions that do impinge on our free will, sometimes for the good but often not.  At least the movie made me think about it.

Duck- here come the swans

“Black Swan” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Swan_(film))  is a powerful film that showcases Natalie Portman’s skill as an actor in her role as Nina.  Much has been said about the movie and I have only a few observations.  The storyline reminded me, as it has others, of Polanski’s “Repulsion” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repulsion_(film))  Both are about beautiful and women who begin to have hallucinations and delusions.  The hallucinations that Deneuve had in Polanski’s film were really creepy and very well done.  I remember seeing hands coming out of walls grabbing at Deneuve’s character.   Director Darren Aronofsky created equally frightening effects, especially when Nina’s skin begins to look like the skin of a swan without its feathers.  Similarly, when she becomes the Black Swan, she sprouts some pretty amazing swan wings.  This, of course, signaled her emotional transformation to the swan character, which had previously eluded her.  Barbara Hershey was effective as Portman’s mother.  She had just enough menace in her relationship to Nina to make one uneasy, but not so much that the viewer blames her for her daughter’s flame out.  Vincent Cassel is also notable as the sometimes smarmy but always narcissistic choreographer.  Aronofsky is quite skilled at not revealing to us whether the smarminess is real or part of Nina’s deteriorating mental health- or both. 

Aronofsky is a great director.  He has done the quirky “Pi”, the gritty “The Wrestler”, and the beautiful “The Fountain.”  He also has used Clint Mansell to write soundtrack music for his films.  I particularly liked Mansell’s lyrical pieces for “the Fountain,” but I found the music weaker for this film, yet the music of Tchaikovsky that is used is so majestic and powerful.

 

Much of the choreography is the movie is done by Benjamin Millepied, who also serves as the Swan’s cavalier.  Millipied  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Millepied) is also the father of Portman’s child. 

Finally, I read a review of the movie by members of the Pittsburgh Ballet Theater.  They were generally positive about the film, as it does fairly represent the angst of auditions and the power of choreographers.  However, one of the dancers made a comment that as well as Portman dances in the film, her arms are not long enough to be a really great ballet dancer.  After having that drawn to my attention, I think I agree. 

This is a great film- short arms to the contrary.  

Help- I've fallen into depression and I can't get up.

I caught the second-half of “The Ice Storm” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ice_Storm_(film)) the other night.  Not having seen it in awhile, I had forgotten what a good cast it had:

• Kevin Kline as Ben Hood
• Joan Allen as Elena Hood
• Jamey Sheridan as Jim Carver
• Sigourney Weaver as Janey Carver
• Henry Czerny as George Clair
• Tobey Maguire as Paul Hood
• Christina Ricci as Wendy Hood
• Elijah Wood as Mikey Carver

Obviously many went on to bigger and better things in their careers.  Watching the movie is a perfect way to become seriously depressed and verging on the suicidal.  It is unrelenting in its depiction of the hopelessness of the characters and their struggle to make sense of their lives.  Even the ending provided little hope for the survivors to create something positive in their lives.  All in all, I think it is an overly bleak view of these characters.  Not all films have to be uplifting, but this is so devoid of positives that it left me wanting Prozac. 

As an aside, Joan Allen looks terrible in her role.  She is tall and thin, but her wardrobe accentuates her angularity.  Her face is gaunt- maybe good for the character she is playing, but probably not good for her health.  Her hair appeared dry and thin.  Maybe she has anorexia.  Pass me another pill.  

Our Greatest Actor?

I recently watched three movies starring Jeff Bridges.  Some reviewers are absolutely smitten with the actor- some even calling him our greatest actor.  (What happened to Keanu Reeves and Ryan Reynolds?)  The movies were :  “The Door in the Floor,” “Tron: The Legacy,” and “True Grit.”   Bridges is a very large presence in these movies, much like Meryl Streep is in her movies.   Both Bridges and Streep bother me, but for different reasons.   Streep’s “great acting” reputation went down like the Hindenburg for me after seeing “Doubt.”  She was so unsubtle and I had the sense that each time she over-acted she was saying to herself “Yes, another Oscar.”  Bridges bothers me because he has settled into the “grizzled old man” role, using his beard, commanding size and mumbling to create his characters.  Yet, he was wonderful in “Starman”, for which he won an Academy Award nomination.  I really liked his intensity, especially when he said “I love you Jennie Hayden.”  But now, he strikes me as an old stoner who has become the next big thing.

 

In “Floor” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Door_in_the_Floor)  he  plays a womanizing heavy drinker, Ted,  who is married to a spaced-out wife, Marion, played by Kim Bassinger.  The source of their current distress is the death of their two sons.  The story is odd and almost seems like the two main characters were created, then the end of the story was written, and then the story was written backwards to justify the ending.  But Bridges is large and powerful.  Bassinger is truly in touch with the despair and hopelessness of Ruth.  The movie was nonetheless powerful because it shows some of the terrible ways we behave when we are trying to cope with the disasters in our lives.  Alcohol and sex dominated the lives of Ted and Marion when what they were really feeling was loss, hurt, anger, and disruption in their lives as a result of the terrible accident that took their two sons.  I thought both Bridges and Bassinger were top notch in a story that seemed a bit over-the-top.  The good news also was that I could actually understand what Bridges was saying, most of the time.

I have already reviewed “Tron: The Legacy.”  The only good acting from Bridges in this movie was that he could say those ridiculous lines with a straight face.  But, one saving grace was that I couldn’t always understand him so the ridiculousness was muted a bit.

Now there is much “chatter” (as we love to say today) about Bridges being a favorite for the Oscar for “True Grit” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Grit_(2010_film). Actually, I thought the best actor in the movie was  Hailee Steinfeld.  She did a wonderful job of pulling of the role of the precocious and officious character Mattie Ross.  Again Bridges was the hefty, grizzled old man with a beard, who mumbled. Worse, the Coen brothers, for some strange reason, did not allow the use of contractions, which made the dialogue stilted and unreal. 

I did not like the movie all that much.  I will give it credit for making 1877 Arkansas seem like a dirty, dusty, and generally nasty place.   Bridges character, Roster Cogburn, was equally dirty, dusty, and generally nasty.  But that was not enough to make it a good movie for me. 

So who is our greatest actor?  I have some suggestions: Robert Downey, Jr., Johnny Depp, or Anthony Hopkins.  So far they have not lapsed into being old, grizzled, and bearded. 

"Tron: Legacy"- something to avoid

“Tron: Legacy” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron:_Legacy) is a sequel to the creative “Tron” from 1982. “Legacy” is an excuse to have 3-D (in order to charge more for admission) effects, a loud soundtrack (the music of which is quite good), and one more movie with the grizzled Jeff Bridges. I used to like Bridges, especially in “Starman”, but lately he has adapted to his casting as the disheveled older guy, who can be be a good guy or a villain. He was particularly awful in “Ironman”, with that ridiculous beard. In “Legacy” he is both a good guy and a villain. For the bad guy he looks like he did in “Starman” ; for the good guy, he is back to being old and grizzled. This movie has more exposition that any in recent memory. The characters have to narrate what is going on since understanding the plot from the movie’s action is simply not possible. The movie seems to be a series of motorcycle races for no immediately obvious reason.

I had read that the 3-D effects were wonderful. It must have been another movie because I sure didn’t see any that were worth the additional $3.00 admission.

While I consider the whole movie to be a waste, there was one grave injustice in it. Olivia Wilde plays a character named Quorra. Wilde is a beautiful and photogenic actress, but in “Legacy” she wears a terrible short wig. It has all of the grace of a straw brush and does nothing to enhance her striking face. But appearances aside, I hope that Wilde begins aiming higher in her choice of movies. “Tron: Legacy”, “Year One”, and “The Next Three Days” a strong resume do not make.

Redemption- bah! Humbug

“Skyline” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyline_(film)) is an alien invasion movie starring Eric Balfour AS Jarrod and Scottie Thompson as Elaine.  The movie received almost uniformly negative reviews, but I must differ.  It’s not the worst I have seen, and it is certainly better than any Jennifer Aniston movie.  I like the notion of an alien invasion movie that has no exposition to explain where they come from, or what their intentions are.  No one needs to explain that they come to kill and harvest as many of us as they can.  “Skyline” is certainly not original- it draws its inspiration from “Independence Day”, “Cloverfield”, “V”,   and the last (and worst) of the original “Alien” series.  The special effects are pretty good in “Skyline” and the creatures are frightening and disgusting.  I thought the film did a nice job of showing how totally confused and afraid we would become if these ugly-ass killing creatures descended upon us.  We would be powerless and most sources of information would be shut down.  We would be left to our own devices, which, I am afraid judging by the last election, are not all that great. 

There are things I didn’t like about the movie.  The first is that Balfour and Thompson have no chemistry.  She is supposed to be pregnant but the way the two characters relate to each other, the procreation must have been by way of artificial insemination.  The film also has Jarrod be something of a wimp.  The part of the movie that I liked least was the ending.  If the final ten minutes could have been eliminated and all humans were destroyed, I would have found it more satisfying than what the ending actually was.  Screen writers and directors seem to have a requirement that love has some great redemptive power and can survive through all kinds of adversity, including having your brain sucked out by some horrible looking creature machine.  Given the havoc that was being visited on human by the invaders, I think it would have been every person for themselves and love-be-damned.  Maybe that’s the cynic in me.  I also don’t understand why aliens would back off hurting its prey because she is pregnant.  Does that mean after the baby is allowed to be born; the aliens will then suck out its brain?  Sounds to me like conservatives who want to save the unborn at all cost, and then throw them to the wolves after they are born.  Well, when I write the next installment of “Skyline”, I will correct these problems. 

I did not feel that the 90 minutes spent watching “Skyline” was a total waste.  It was not nearly as bad as watching the president feign anger at republican shenanigans, when he is actually one of them!

The Next Three Days is not such a long time

“The Next Three Days”  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Next_Three_Days) is directed by Paul Haggis and stars Russell Crowe and Elizabeth Banks.  There are also appearances by Liam Neeson and  Olivia Wilde.  Having Banks and Wilde in the same movie provides for some great eye candy.  Crowe ,  on the other hand, is becoming a bigger star- literally. 

The movie was filmed in Pittsburgh and concerns a loving husbands attempt to rescue his unjustly imprisoned wife from life of incarceration.  The main part of the story involves Crowe’s meticulous planning for and implementation of a prison-break plan.  The plot is full of holes, and for the most part, stretches credibility.  But it does have some great qualities.  Did I mention Banks and Wilde?  But seriously, I was very troubled by the moral ambiguity of the story.  I have led a life seeing mostly gray, so moral ambiguity is an old friend.  But here, Crowe and Banks are nice people, but I didn’t know enough about them to like them.  So when Crowe develops his plan to rescue his wife, he is willing to take the lives of others (undesirables, yes, but people nonetheless) in an effort to recapture his wife and family.  After he killed the thugs, I found his situation less compelling.  In addition, I wondered how he ever thought that his family life could ever be untroubled in the future after what he had to go through in order to save it.  It’s like our foreign policy where we believe that the way to save another country is to destroy it.

There is one scene where Banks demonstrates her acting chops.  She is in an elevator after he recently sprung her from a civilian hospital.    She has a look of fear in her face when she looks at Crowe that is so believable and compelling.  I felt her terror.   Maybe to get into the mood she was contemplating what would happen if Crowe fell over on her. 

The soundtrack was quite good.  The music by Danny Elfman fit the grittiness of the film’s image.  There is one song, I believe by Moby, which has his trademarked sadness and gloom.  It was also fitting for the subject matter. 

It’s been about an hour since I saw the film.  I still feel anxious- so maybe the film was a success in spite of itself. 

Hope Springs Eternal

While in Rome a few months ago we visited the Spanish steps, one of the famous tourist sites in that great city.  I mentioned to my traveling companions that the steps played an important role in the Tennessee Williams penned “The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone.”  I attempted to summarize the plot for them, but they did not seem all that interested, if at all.   As fortune would have it, the movie, based on the novel was on TCN last night.

“The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone” was released in 1961 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roman_Spring_of_Mrs._Stone).  It starred Vivian Leigh as a faded actress (Karen Stone) who travels to Italy with her husband after having a disastrous stage performance as Juliet.  The critics said she was too old for the part.  En route to Rome, her husband died on the airplane.  The story has Karen meeting the Contessa Magda Terribili-Gonzales (played by the wonderful Lotte Lenya), who is a not-so- high-class pimp.  She introduces Mrs. Stone to Paolo, played by Warren Beatty.  Paolo is a gigolo who makes his living off of rich older women.  Karen falls for his charms, realizing all along that she is being used, but in spite of herself, falls for the cad.  In the end, he deserts her and she is left taking the risk of allowing a man who has been stalking her to enter her apartment. 

The beautiful Vivian Leigh was in the waning years of her illustrious film career, although still beautiful.   She was one of those actors from the golden age of cinema who was elegant and who brought refinement to her acting.  She didn’t put her fingernail in her mouth to look coy or cute.  She didn’t have to giggle her hair around to look beguiling.  She played Karen as a dazed woman who had lost her career and her husband.  Thus, Karen’s attraction to Paulo did not grow from lust or a new found sexual freedom, but rather from the numbing loneliness and loss of the anchor of her marriage and career.  She was like a pinball being bounced from bumper to bumper - without thought or reaction.  Sex with Paolo was a tranquilizer and a way to make her numbness subside just a bit.  Sometimes she would be exhilarated by the thought of having such a handsome man pay attention to her, but she would quickly return to automatic pilot after that thought left.  Leigh’s performance was not large and grand, but she captured the existential numbness perfectly. 

Beatty, while very handsome, was no match for Leigh.  His supposed Italian accent was more like Russian.  Beatty got Paolo’s petulance correct, but the smoldering sensuality was simply not within his grasp.  Beatty successfully pulled off Paolo’s wondering eye and his disdain for Americans, including Karen from time to time.

Lotte Lenya was perfect as the sleazy countess.   She was cynical and took delight in making fun of Karen behind her back.  A particularly powerful scene for me was when the Countess asked Karen for $1000.  She did not hesitate to ask.  Karen, in a robot-like fashion, offered $500.  With all of the chutzpah in the word, Lenya came back as ask for $750.  Karen stayed at $500, but this bargaining made the Countess seem even slimier. 

After begin rejected by Paolo, and having been made fun of by the Countess Karen is desperate, and throws the keys to her apartment out the window to a young man who had been following Karen throughout Rome.  He was dirty, and unkempt, but attractive.  It was clear that to Karen, at the moment, any port in the storm would do.  It was a powerful ending to the story.

Rome looked wonderful in the movie.  It was nice to see it without graffiti.  It was fun to watch Karen being driven around in a huge 1960s American car that was twice as long as the everyday Italian variety.  There were several cars of this vintage in the movie, including a Chrysler Imperial with its gun-sight tail light mounted on huge fins.  There was also a Continental with sharp grand fins.  The cinematography was luxurious and made the most of the Italian vistas. 

By today’s standards, this movie seems tame.  It does not have overt sexual acts, but it alludes to them.  It does not have heavy breathing and clawing, but the passion is assumed.  But, to see a great actress at work is worth two hours. 

The Devil Made Me Do It

“Devil” is a film based on a story by M. Night Shyamalan and it was directed by Brian Nelson.  See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_(film).  It is very au courant to be critical of MHS’s movies.  When someone is at the pinnacle on their first film (“The Sixth Sense”), it likely will only be downhill from there, but “Devil” is not so bad. 

There were some shocking parts, thanks to good editing, dark lighting, and the sense of being trapped in an elevator.  Those scares alone were worth the admission because there are so few scares in movies today.  Lots of blood and guts yes- but scares- no.  The photography was very good and the amount of dark green post-production lighting was kept to a minimum.  In fact, the elevator scenes were filmed in normal light and color.  Only when it was necessary for scare did the lights dim.  The extra-elevator scenes did sometimes have that green tint that directors recently seem to equate with “Be afraid, dammit.”  I particularly like Logan Marshall-Green, who is one of the main characters of the film.  He is in the cast of TVs “Dark Blue” and is credible in it also.  The title sequence was wonderful.  It was a helicopter fly-by of the Philadelphia skyline only inverted.  It was effective in setting us up for a film where the bottom (the devil) comes out on top.  I also liked the theme of how one man’s redemption can lead to the redemption of another, even if it is not intentional. 

Lest I be accused of being soft, I do have some criticisms.  For example, I did not get the feeling of claustrophobia of four people being trapped in an elevator.  Most of the time, we were looking into the elevator from a security camera.  I would have preferred to have five or six people trapped and I would have preferred camera work that would have captured the kind of “in your face” personal space that such cramped quarters would have engendered.  The story also had to rely too much on exposition to explain what was going on. This included not only a voice over, but most of the explanation came from a religious Hispanic guard who knew what was going on from the get go because of a story that his grandmother had told him.  His genuflecting and crossing became tedious, as well as his ever-so-knitted brow.  Of course, no one believed him (like the sheriff in “Jaws”) until it was nearly too late.  Such a plot device was not really needed in that the audience could come up with their own interpretation without a lot of difficulty.

 

I have never fully understood why those religions that posit the presence of a devil seem to make the devil more powerful that their deity.  If not more powerful, at least he or she does better tricks.  Why don’t four people get stuck in an elevator with god who makes them do good things?  What- that would be boring.

I need a new maid

“The Handmaid’s Tale”  is another dystopian view of the not so distant future.  For a summary, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid's_Tale_(film).  Natasha Richardson stars, along with Faye Dunaway and Robert Duvall, the latter with a terrible black hair color.  In the story, the women of the Republic of Gilead (which looks alot like New England) have been made sterile as a result of pollution.  Gilead seems to be the good o’ US of A after a fundamentalist revolution.  Duvall’s character says that the revolution was necessary to stop the influence of the liberals, big-government worshippers, atheists, and homosexuals.  Does any of this sound familiar?  Anyway, Richardson plays Kate who is abducted while mistakenly crossing into Gilead’s borders.  Her husband was killed, and she becomes a Handmaid, that is, a still-fertile woman whose job is to spawn with one of Gilead’s men, in this case, the Commander (Duvall).  The procedure is that the couple has intercourse while the barren wife (Dunaway) watches and holds onto the handmaid’s hands.   The procedure is designed so that the wife can ensure that nothing affectional goes on.  I am not sure why in vitro-fertilization, or artificial insemination would not have worked just as well, except that it would not have been as interesting and oddly un-erotic.

 

I did not care for the movie much.  The premise is interesting and is probably is consistent with men’s fantasies to have sex without attachment.  But, Richardson just did not seem convincing.  While Jane could not openly express her feelings because of the nature of the governing regime,   Richardson did not effectively convey Jane’s simultaneous public stoicism and private anger, angst, and sadness over losing her husband and daughter.  Dunaway was great as the conflicted wife, who had to make her life meaningful through her flower garden.  Duvall was very good as the in-charge, macho, slimy Commander, who wanted both sex and affection.  Aidan Quinn served as a love interest for Richardson, but this relationship was not so intimate that Jane shared her feelings about her losses.  As a result, the relationship seemed cold and not compelling. 

The fundamental problem with the film was that it was as sterile as Gilead’s woman.  There was little emotion with which to identify and Richardson did nothing to heat it up. 

I would like to see the film redone with today’s sensibilities and a more mature actress who could find the right mix of public aloofness and private turmoil.  Likely the story will not be retold, however, since it wouldn’t require guns, computer graphics, and a very loud soundtrack.  

I am Faithful to Marianne

“Irina Palm” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irina_Palm) is a film that is blessed by the presence of Marianne Faithful, whose career began in the 1960s.  She has morphed from pop singer to pop concubine, to drug addict, to author, and finally to actor.  She has had a tough life but she does not seem to be weary or tired.  She looks like she has doubled in size over the years, but she still has that beautiful face and smoky voice.  Her breasts have grown and her shoulders have rounded, but she remains a stunning person.  Faithful plays Maggie, a grandmother whose grandson is very ill and who has a son who seems to be caught in a loveless marriage and who also seems to be unemployed.  As luck would have it the only way to save the boy’s life is to receive treatment in Australia, which his parents cannot afford.  Maggie must set out to find a job to help raise the funds for the life-saving journey.  She is untrained, unskilled, and has never worked.  She finally lands a job as a “hostess” in a sex emporium in London.  Her initial revulsion to her job duties fades as she begins to excel in her craft and begins to earn money.  Ultimately, she earns enough to send the son, his wife, and the grandson to Australia.  This is not the first movie to have a plot where someone’s illness jumpstarts a new career for a loved one, but usually it has involved robbing banks rather than rubbing a body part.
 

Faithful makes the movie.  She is totally believable and does not condescend to the material or the character.  I was moved by her determination to succeed even in an industry where success may come naturally- if you’ll pardon the pun. 

The movie begins with aerial shots of one of those picturesque English towns where everything is made of field stone, and nothing has changed in 100 years.  I cannot imagine living in one of these hamlets where all there is to do is watch the BBC and go to the local pub.  I suspect they are much better to look at than to live in.  The film shines light on some of Maggie’s friends and neighbors, who are stuffy, unattractive and judgmental.  Faithful does a good job of portraying her character’s glee at sharing her job duties with her circle of friends, one of whom had an affair with Maggie’s dead husband.  Maggie delights in outing the woman in a local store where the local women gather to pass judgment on each other.  The other woman was played by Jennie Agutter, who is years past was in “Logan’s Run” and “An American Werewolf in London.”    At least from how she appears in the film, the years have not been as kind to her as they have been to Faithful. 

For me, there are two very powerful scenes in the film.  The first is at its beginning where Faithful in cramming into a small car with her son who is driving them to the hospital.  She has a huge teddy bear on her lap to give to her grandson.  The trees are leafless and the weather is cold.  The ordinariness of these two people came through so well.  It could have been any of us, and no matter how special we may think we are, we live in drab towns and we must go to the hospital to visit loved ones- without so much as a sound bite on Fox news as to our nobility.  The film captured this nobility within the mundane very successfully.  The second strong scene is where Maggie’s son confronts her about her new career.  He calls her a whore and forbids her to return to her work.  Faithful captures Maggie’s hurt and incredulity at her son’s ungratefulness.  She also conveys Maggie’s fear that she will lose the excitement and worth that she feels from having a job in London- even if that job is on the margins of society.

 

“Irina Palm” is a very good movie with a great actor. It is the kind of movie that Hollywood just could not pull off.  It would have to be very judgmental and sensationalized.  Instead here we have a slice of life where a person of modest background is trying to do something decent with limited resources, like most of us, I think.  Finally, it is very worth the investment of two hours to see Marianne Faithful in action.

Bwana No!

I have finally seen the worst movie of my life. “Bwana Devil” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bwana_Devil).    I tuned into it about halfway through so I did not get to experiences its total awfulness, but I at least had a taste.  It is supposed to be about British East Africa, but was so obviously filmed in the Southern California hills.  There is one scene where these white British railway execs were being entertained by people from India who were putting on their version of “So You Think You Can Dance.”  After seeing and appreciating Bollywood-style dancing, the wiggling and gyrating of the two male dancers was truly funny.  At times one dancer would just stop and look at his   partner and then begin to mimic his actions until the next pause.  It was all very extemporaneous, and seemed to be done without benefit of music, since rhythm never seemed to enter the equation.  There is another scene where the white folk were entertained by native African dancers.  Our dream cast, including Robert Stack and Barbara Britton, watched the pre-filmed dance extravaganza as it was projected onto a screen.  There was no pretense that the actors were even in the same universe as the dancers.  After one of the wild dance scenes, the cast dined al fresco and then headed off to bed.  Someone forgot to cue the sun to go down and the moon to rise since the scene was obviously filmed mid-day. 

In the climactic final scenes, Stack and Britten were clinging to the side of a rocky hill.  They were both perspiring (complements of a spray bottle) but from one camera angle to another, the pattern of the sweat on their clothes changed shape.

 The film’s man eating lions were either blue screened in or were live, but so valiumed-out that the only threat they posed was of falling to the ground asleep.

 

I often will recommend a bad film just for guilty-pleasure purposes or for potential learning value.  “Bwana Devil” is so bad that my only advice is to remember that you will never get the 90 minutes back.  

Why such a bitch Darling?

Turner Classic Movies had a day dedicated to the films of Julie Christie.  The whole day was filled with some of her best work done in the 1960’s and 1970’s.  I remember seeing her in “Darling” when it was first released and recollect how daring and “sophisticated” it seemed to be.  So watching it again could only be good, right?  Well more on that later.  For a plot synopsis, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darling_(film)

The film, directed by John Schlesinger, documented, and parodied the swinging culture of mid-1960’s London.  Christie was quite beautiful.  She plays a woman, Diana, who cannot seem to be without a man.  She takes another woman’s husband (Dirk Bogarde as Robert) so she herself can be happy, at least for awhile.  When she becomes bored with that relationship, she moves on to another one, and then another.  Each segue from one man to another has a brief introduction or ending using Diana in a voiceover.  Each is a self-serving justification for her deplorable actions, while being humorous at the same time.

There is one scene that I found particularly interesting.  She is at a lavish party in Paris with Laurence Harvey’ character Miles.  One group activity for the evening involved having the participants begin to remove their clothing while dancing in a circle.  As one person removed something, another would pick up that article and put it on.  There was also a movie projector that had its light focused on a screen.  As each person would move in front of the screen, they would stop, and someone shouted out the name of the person whose character they were to assume.  The participants would then ask embarrassing questions that had to be answered by the person on the hot seat.  The answers were snarky and bitchy.  A black gentleman had to answer questions as if he were Diana character.  Also in this scene, Miles introduces Diana to an older female partygoer.  This character took an immediate interest in Diana.  Miles says sotto voce to the woman that she should not forget that he knows she is a man.  We also find out a bit later in the film that Miles is impotent.

So moving along- Diana is at a modeling assignment being photographed by Malcolm, played by Roland Curram.  They strike up a friendship and eventually end up in a department store stealing food for a sumptuous supper.  Diana and Malcolm agree that they will be “brother and sister forever” given that he was interested in men.  They decide to travel together to Capri because she was in need of rest.  While on the vacation, Malcolm took to picking up some of the local culture, leaving Diana alone, much to her chagrin.  There is one scene where Diana is laying on a beach with three men on her left and three on her right.  Each of the men was wearing a somewhat skimpy bathing suit.  There is a quick cut to a kitchen alarm that goes off.  In response to the bell, each of the men turns over in order not to get too much sun.  They made the turn with the precision of the Rockettes.   The movie goes on to another relationship in which Diana becomse involved but my mind was distracted by an emerging revelation.

About two-thirds of the way through the move it dawned on me that I (and probably a good percentage of those who have seen the film) had been somewhat duped.  It occurred to me that Christie’s character was a stand-in for a gay man.  Just as “Sex in the City” has been described as a show about four gay men, “Darling” is a film about the gay-life style in London during the mid-1960s. While watching the film, I wanted to explore this issue more so I used my cell phone to Google the cast.  In fact, Bogarde, Harvey, and Curram were all gay actors.  Schlesinger was a gay director.  In an early scene, Bogarde’s character was conducting an on-the-street TV interview where he asked passers-by what embarrassed them about England.  I thought it was an odd scene, but likely was included by Schlesinger to establish John’s bona fides as a TV personality.  One of the interviewees said that he was embarrassed by how open the homosexual community had become and how uncomfortable he had become with being hit on by the locals.  I should have realized then that something so seemingly out of context had to have some grander meaning for the film. But, I did get it eventually. 

 I don’t know if Christie was aware of the subtext in the role she was being asked to play.  If she did then she gets kudos for taking the role seriously.  If she didn’t, shame on Schlesinger.  For me, the movie became a disappointing ruse once I realized that subtext, since a story about a woman addicted to men and relationships with them could have stood on its own, especially during the 1960s. 

One final note- there are a few scenes where young children are being disciplined by their ever-so- mannered English parents.  I can’t imagine how a 3-year old in the US would react if told by their mother “Don’t be such a bore”!

I liked “Darling” for reminding me of the 1960s, which was a decade of great cultural change and societal exploration.  Some of the London architecture at the time was impressive and Diana’s wardrobe was impressive.  Bogarde’s clothing was all tweedy and professor-like, while Harvey’s was ultra-sophisticated and stylish.  But, at its heart, “Darling” left me very disappointed with its subterfuge.  The Parisian party was like watching Kathy Griffen do one of her bitchy routines.  It’s funny for awhile, but then it becomes “enough already.”

I Am Like

“I Am Love” is an Italian-made movie starring Tilda Swinton, an English actor who plays a Russian émigré who speaks Italian. I am not sure if her Italian has a Russian accent, but it probably doesn’t matter.  Swinton is a formidable presence in any movie.  She appears to be a tall woman but she is thin, but not too thin. Actually, all the actors in this movie are thin- oh, I forgot, it was made in Italy where people are still of what-used-to-be-considered a normal size in the US.  Today, however, if a person is of normal size, we in the US are obliged to say something like "she  looks like a drug addict."  But I digress.  I think Swinton is attractive in a very idiosyncratic way, except when she smiles.  Her teeth require some major intervention.  For a summary of the plot of the film, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Love_(film) .

“I Am Love” has received rave reviews from those supposedly in the know.  Many have said that it has great cinematography.  I cannot confirm that since I saw in a movie theater designed some time ago.  It had no stadium seating and only a center aisle.  As a result, I viewed the movie off angle and l had to look up to see the screen.  This effectively washed out all of the color from the movie.  So while there are views of the Italian landscape, they appeared dull and lifeless.  The sound system was also archaic.  The score was by the preeminent American composer John Adams, and the music was a perfect compliment to the plot, but it sounded like listening to a symphony through a telephone. Finally, the theater had the smell of a room that has been bathed in air-conditioning for way too long and the mold was flourishing.

 

Much of the movie takes place inside the mansion owned by Swinton’s movie husband.  It was large and very interesting.  It appeared to have been designed under the influence of art deco.  It had dark wooden walls that were warm and understated.  The mansion plays an important part in setting the atmosphere for the movie.  There were long walks for the hired help while serving dinner to the wealthy members of the family. 

If you read the summary of the plot, you will see that not a lot happens.  It’s about relationships that change over time for reasons that the screenwriter does not share with us.  I was never quite clear what motivated Swinton’s character to have the affair.  Was it boredom? Was it that she had emigrated and had lived long enough in Italy that she no longer needed her marriage?  But for me, I don’t need to understand all of the reasons that people do as they do, at least in films, if I am moved by what is presented.  In this case, I was not particularly moved, so a bit more background would have helped.  Also, after her son tripped and fell into the pool, Swinton’s character stood motionless for a few seconds, which actually seemed quite long in such a desperate situation.  I couldn’t tell if it was indifference or bad directing or bad editing.

There is one scene where Swinton is topless with her fictional paramour. It was crudely filmed and her breasts looked oddly bruised.  I am all for realism, but it was more than I really needed to see.

In spite of the negative tone of this review, I liked the film.  It’s a movie that suits European sensibilities so well (at least as I perceive them). The movie contains a slice of life about real relationships where motives are not always clear and dynamics are not always understandable.  It had no guns, no killing, no aliens, no giant robots, limited foul language, and no unnaturally loud music.  It also had subtitles which, of course, had to be read.  No wonder it hasn’t done well at the US box office.  

Worth its weight in Salt

“Salt” is an exciting movie.  For a summary of the plot, click here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_(film) The plot makes little sense but it really doesn’t need too.  Why?  It has a magnificent Angelina Jolie.  She is stunning, energetic, and she never seems to condescend to the movie or her character.  I understand that she did most of the stunt work herself, which is incredible even if she only did one-third of them.  The movie has nonstop action and Jolie moves from one adrenaline-filled scene to another.  In fact, she is in almost every scene.  I have read on the web that some say Ms. Jolie is too thin. I guess that just says to me that we have indeed adjusted our view of what’s normal in order to justify our ever increasing girth. 

Liev Shreiber plays one of the main characters.  He is his usual unremarkable self.  Chiwetl Ejiofor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiwetel_Ejiofor) plays Salt’s CIA antagonist.  He is a compelling actor who has an intriguing voice and style of talking.  He has an interesting background and he deserves all of the attention he receives.  

There is not a lot else to say about the movie.  Jolie is captivating even in a fairly light-weight movie.  Watching her is a real pleasure. 

Most of the movie was filmed in and around Washington, D.C.  For those of you who know the city, it’s always fun to see how movie makers remake a city.  Jolie’s character lives in Adams Morgan and goes into the Metro seemingly across the street, except that it’s not the Adams Morgan Metro entrance.  The subway tunnels are in fact, not those of the DC metro.  They look to me more like the LA subway tunnels.  Some of the supposed DC highways were in fact located in another city and it’s noticeable to those familiar with the city. 

I appreciated that Jolie smiles in this film.  This is a contrast to Daniel Craig’s grim and determined James Bond.  With previous actors, Bond was not only licensed to kill, he was also a bon vivant.  Craig’s Bond is only licensed to kill. 

I recommend “Salt” if you want simply to have fun with an impenetrable plot with holes as wide as the Grand Canyon, exciting action, one powerful and beautiful star.

A good movie now and at its inception

According to what I read, “Inception” is the “movie event of the summer.” It’s directed by Christopher Nolan and stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Ken Watanabe, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page, Cillian Murphy, Tom Hardy, Tom Berenger, Dileep Rao and Michael Caine. The plot is summarized at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception_(film). Suffice it to say it is about a dream, within a dream, within a dream. Or, in Shakespeare’s time, it would have been a play, within a play, within a play. It draws upon various other films, including “Dark City,” “Flatliners,” “Dreamscape,” the james Bond series, and probably others.


I think that it is a very good film- it is engrossing, well-photographed and acted. DiCaprio is a wonderful actor with a great range. I would like to see him in a sophisticated comedy, you know, the kind we don’t have any more, thanks to Judd Apatow. There is one scene where Leo is talking with Cillian Murphy in a bar and he is so strong, so forceful, and commanding that I would have bought a Corvair from him. Cotillard, who plays the wife, is unconvincing and unsympathetic. Maybe it’s her character and her circumstances, but I really think is Cotillard’s limitations as an actor. Joseph Gordon-Levett plays Arthur, the “point man.” He’s good and likely has a good future in action movies. Ellen Page is an architect for the dream world. Her role evolves into being a therapist for the main character. Not sure what resulted in the change of role, but Page keeps up with it. Tom Berenger also has a prominent role. I have not seen him in some time, so I was a bit surprised by his ponderousness. One of his films-“Someone to Watch Over Me” is one of my favorites, in part because he and Mimi Rodgers made a handsome couple. If aged has changed her as much as it has Berenger, I don’t think they should plan a reunion. Cillian Murphy plays a key role as the business man whose mind has to be changed by DiCaprio’s entourage. I have read on the internet that Murphy is referred to as the “prettiest man alive.” He is handsome but has a rather slight presence that made him seem vulnerable and an easy target for manipulation. Wait- -that’s what happens to him in the film, so I guess he played it well.

The set up for the story is extensive. It’s similar to having characters of a video game discuss the rules for the player so the player can understand the game before it begins. Because the concept is so convoluted, DiCaprio and Page spend about a half hour going over the rules of entering the dreams of others. If the viewer doesn’t remember all of the rules, the movie will become confusing and maybe even boring. The special effects are outstanding, and I think the movie cries out for a 3-D treatment. I understand that James Cameron will be rereleasing “Titanic” in 3-D so I would not be surprised if “Inception” gets a new look.

There are a few things that I did not like about the film:

1. The soundtrack by Hans Zimmer was ever-present and too loud. Often I couldn’t understand Page because of the music. While it adds to the overall atmospherics of the film, it could have been toned down a bit.

2. There were continuity problems. There are scenes where rain is an important character, yet in those scenes, the sun is shining. Someone forgot to make the sky cloudy.

3. There are several scenes shot with a high speed camera of a van falling into a river while it is snowing. Unfortunately the digital snow was not filmed in high speed.

4. There is an overly long section of the movie filmed at a mountaintop lodge. It is snowing and it reminded me a bit of the Piz Gloria scenes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”. These scenes plodded and cried out for some editing. I lost interest before the climax was reached.

5. As I already mentioned, the narrative to set the stage for the movie was overly long. Better they handed out a rule book when we first entered the theater. I know- it wouldn’t have worked, but the exposition really added to the two and a half hour length of the movie.

Notwithstanding these quibbles, I like “Inception” a great deal. It is intriguing and thoroughly enjoyable. I saw it at an IMAX theater, which I highly recommend for others. There are some fantastic rumbles that come from the speakers during the movie that were really enjoyable. All in all, it’s a good way to spend a hot afternoon in an air-conditioned theater.

Brief Reviews- Kings, Erasers and Lives

Brief reviews:


1. “The Tudors” series ended. Like other movies/series, more time was spent in the early parts of the history and less at the end. So we had a lot of Catharine of Aragon and Anne Bolyn, but little of Kathryn Howard and Katherine Parr. It reminds of the bumper stickers that say “Plan Ahea” while running out of space. Jonathan Rhys Myers did a commendable job of ageing Henry. Rhys-Myers managed to have his lips droop at the ends, as happens with many older folks, me included. He also developed a very gravelly voice, which I assumed resulted from his heavy drinking. He also portrayed the senior Henry as tired, in pain, and troubled by his duties. Sarah Bolger played Henry’s daughter Mary. Bolger was a standout in the entire series. She has a elegance and calm, as well as a beautiful face. She was quite good at giving us hints of the tyrannical zealot that she was to become when she ascended to the throne. Bloody Mary embodied the evil that can arise from fanatical religious beliefs, but I digress. Tamzin Merchant acquitted herself well as Kathryn Howard. She had the right mix of adolescent impetuousness where she was seemingly unable to anticipate the consequences of her actions. Joely Richardson played Katherine Parr. I have not been a fan of Ms. Richardson since her ridiculous role in the TV series “Nip/Tuck”, where she played the dysfunctional wife of a plastic surgeon. In that role, she was a wife and a bad mother. She took a female lover and a little-person lover. Her acting the part of Queen Katherine Parr seemed to suit Ms. Richardson’s reserve and elegance. I enjoyed watching her.

 I will miss the Tudors- they were a fun bunch.

2. I saw “Eraserhead” again. This is the late 70’s masterpiece by David Lynch. I use the word “masterpiece” because others have used it. I like Lynch, but the general weirdness of his movies, grows wearisome. In fact, much of what appears in “Eraserhead” appears in his later movies, e.g, strange furniture, some of the ugliest lighting fixtures I have ever seen, strange music, and certainly odd characters. But, in the context of the late 1970’s, this movie was groundbreaking. The plot is not much (click here for a synopsis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eraserhead). For me, Lynch’s greatest accomplishment in this movie is the persistent feeling of dread, anxiety, over control with the ever-present possibility of losing control, and losing contact with reality. The buzzing drone of the soundtrack heightens the potential fear. If the sign of a good movie is that it makes us feel, then “Eraserhead” did that for me. I just wish it would have been a positive feeling.

3. I have previously reviewed “The Life Before Her Eyes.” I caught it again and still think it is a very good movie. Rachel Evan Wood is fascinating to watch. Uma Therman has always been a favorite of mine. It’s a confusing movie, but it is supposed to be. Some of the discussion on the web is so off-the-mark for me. It usually discusses an abortion the main character had and how that influenced her later life, i.e., lots of guilt. This is only the case if you really didn’t understand the plot. I guess anytime abortion is discussed, it is loaded with excess meaning and plenty of heat, but not much light.

"Adventureland"- a nice movie

“Adventureland” is a 2009 comedy-drama film written and directed by Greg Mottola, director of Superbad. The film stars Jesse Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart, Margarita Levieva, Ryan Reynolds, Martin Starr, Bill Hader, and Kristen Wiig.


For a plot summary, click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventureland.

“Adventureland” is an enjoyable film about two young adults who, because of family issues, work together in an amusement park. The two main characters, James (Eisenburg) and Em (Stewart) fall in love, and, of course, mature in the process. Eisenburg plays James as a low-keyed guy who most parents would likely be happy to have their daughter married. Stewart plays Em as slightly depressed and angry at her father, who she feels remarried to quickly after her mother died of cancer. They are absolutely believable.

The film was billed as a comedy but it really is a love story. Maybe the studio was afraid that it would drive viewers away if they knew it was not a “Superbad”-inspired sex comedy. But this is a far better movie.

There are a few misfires in the film. The first is Ryan Reynolds. But, then he is a misfire in every movie he is in. His training as a Keanu Reeves wannabe really shines through. The other misfire is the Matt Bush character. His sole purpose in life seems to be hitting James in the privates. Maybe the director thought it was hilarious or maybe I am missing something.

“Adventureland” was filmed in Pittsburgh, including at its famous Kennywood amusement park.

I highly recommend this movie. It’s not profound, but for the most part, it is enjoyable and a gentle love story.