Some
quick reviews of two of the most interesting and highly discussed films
of 2014. I admire both, but unfortunately don't have all that much to
say about either.
Alejandro Iñárritu's "Birdman"
is probably going to win the Best Picture Oscar on Sunday, a black
comedy about showbiz and a man at the end of his rope. Michael Keaton
plays Riggan Thomson, a former movie star known for playing the
superhero character Birdman, and now making a last stab at artistic
credibility by staging and starring in a Broadway play. As a
potentially disastrous opening night approaches, Riggan grapples with
his relationships with his actress girlfriend (Andrea Riseborough),
recovering addict daughter (Emma Stone), a rival actor (Edward Norton),
and the ghosts of his past, embodied in Birdman himself, who just won't
leave Riggan alone.
There are several films this
season that have been accused of being "gimmick" movies. "Boyhood" with
its long production time and "Grand Budapest Hotel" with its heavy
stylization come to mind. "Birdman," however, outdoes them all. It's
been designed so that the bulk of the movie appears to take place in a
single tracking shot. Things happen literally and figuratively at the
same time to reflect our main character's state of mind, so Riggan
Thomson appears to have superpowers and has face to face arguments with
figments of his imagination. There's the "Noises Off, " behind the
scenes, play-within-a-play business. And add the meta elements of the
Hollywood v. artistic integrity conflict, with Michael Keaton fighting a
thinly veiled Batman stand-in. It's amazing that the final result is
as cohesive as it is, and so jam-packed with clever little moments where
you just have to sit back and admire the craft and artistry that went
into pulling them off.
I enjoyed "Birdman"
thoroughly, but I didn't find myself engaged with it beyond the surface
level. I think it has to do with a script that was often juggling too
many ideas and Michael Keaton's performance. I never sympathized or
felt I really got to know Riggan Thomson the way I did just about every
other character. It's really a knockout cast. In addition to Stone,
Risenborough, and Norton, we get memorable work from Naomi Watts, Zack
Galifianakis, Lindsay Duncan, and more. Keaton, however, gets the
lion's share of the screen time and the entire movie hinges on his
ability to sell Riggan Thomson. And I never quite bought it. There's
always been a distance I associate with Keaton, and it really undercut
him in this role.
Still, the rest of the movie
is such a wonderfully weird, ambitious piece of filmmaking, with gutsy
cinematography, gorgeous fantasy sequences, some great dialogue, and a
smashing jazz drum score. This is the last thing I would have expected
out of Alejandro Iñárritu, who is usually the purveyor of much heavier
dramas. I hope we get to see this side of him more often.
And now
let's move on to "Inherent Vice," the highly anticipated reteaming of
Paul Thomas Anderson with Joaquin Phoenix from "The Master." This time
they've tackled Thomas Pynchon's "Inherent Vice," a detective story
entangled in the drug culture of Southern California in the 1970s.
Phoenix plays Larry "Doc" Sportello, who is trying to locate his missing
ex-girlfriend Shasta (Katherine Waterston) and a
local real estate developer, Mickey Wolfmann (Eric Roberts). And that's
about all I'm really sure about plotwise, because this is a Pynchon
story, and coherence is not really the man's strong suit.
I
don't really know how wrap my head around "Inherent Vice," because to
some degree you're not meant to. It's designed to be a rabbit hole,
down which the perpetually high Doc Sportello gamely flings himself.
The incredibly dense, convoluted plot is really beside the point, meant
to push Doc from one strange encounter to the next. I lost track of the
number of familiar actors who show up for a scene or two, some of them
great, some not so great, and some entirely inexplicable. Special
mention must be made of Josh Brolin as Doc's nemesis Detective
"Bigfoot" Bjornsen, who delivers a comic performance you gotta see up
close to really appreciate. And then there's Joanna Newsome as Doc's
confidant, Sortilège, and Hong Chau as Jade, a helpful reprobate. And
Owen Wilson and Benicio Del Toro and Jena Malone and Reese Witherspoon
and Martin Short are in the mix too.
I've heard
the suggestion that Anderson meant to capture the experience of being on
drugs, which accounts for the atmosphere of itchy paranoia and spacey
disconnectedness. This isn't to suggest that "Inherent Vice" is some
careless mess or a one-trick pony. Far from it. The filmmaking is very
deliberate, with beautifully composed visuals, well balanced tones, and
some downright effective humor. It's also a love letter to a bygone
era, a satire on conspiracy thrillers, and a wistful fin-de-siecle
chronicling the end of revolutionary spirit of the 60s. The film
certainly doesn't lack for substance, and there are already various
interpretations and analysis pieces floating around, written by viewers
who have excavated all sorts of fascinating things from the movie. I
suspect that for the Anderson die-hards, "Inherent Vice" will be a
treat.
I, however, failed to find an entry
point. "Inherent Vice" was just too difficult and obfuscated for me to
penetrate. I wanted to like it after having had very positive reactions
to "The Master" and most of the rest of Paul Thomas Anderson's
filmmography. I liked a few moments here and there very much, and I
know that I would likely find more if I watched the movie multiple times
and put some effort into untangling the narrative and interpreting its
obtuse symbolism. However, I just don't care enough to try at
the moment. The movie didn't give me enough the first time around to
make me want to take a second look. Maybe after some time has passed,
I'll give it another shot.
But for now, I have a lot more films to catch up on.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment