This review is going to be very spoiler-heavy, because one of the most notable things about "Angels With Dirty Faces" is the direction that the story takes, which simply wouldn't happen in a mainstream modern film. I'm going to discuss it in some depth, so fair warning, and here we go. "Angels With Dirty Faces" is a crime film about gangster Rocky Sullivan (James Cagney) who does all the despicable things that gangsters do, but makes good in the very end by sacrificing his reputation and acting like a coward at his execution. He does this for the noble purpose of ensuring that the local gang of street kids who idolize him won't be tempted to follow in his footsteps.
Present-day American culture idolizes the anti-hero and masculine pride far too much for this kind of ending to be acceptable today, and such blatant morality tales went out of fashion a long time ago. The story follows a tried and true formula. Rocky and his best friend Jerry Connolly (Pat O'Brien) are a pair of mischievous kids together. One day they are caught trying to rob a railroad car. Jerry escapes, but Rocky is carted off to a string of reform schools and lock-ups, graduating to longer stints in prison as his criminal career progresses. After serving a three-year sentence for a theft committed with a shady lawyer named Frazier (Humphrey Bogart), Rocky goes home to the old neighborhood, and discovers that Jerry has grown up to be a respected local priest, and Laury (Ann Sheridan), the girl they used to tease, is now a beauty.
Rocky has matters to square with Frazier and his boss Keefer (George Bancroft), which leads to escalating episodes of violence. However, this is not your typical gangster picture. The film's biggest conflict is really over the souls of the gang of local boys, lead by Soapy (Billy Halop), who Father Jerry is trying to keep on the side of angels, steering them away from vice and temptation. Rocky befriends them, after they pick his pocket, and quickly becomes their hero and the only adult who can get them to do anything. It's easy to see why. Rocky Sullivan may be the most likeable gangster there ever was, a man who claims he doesn't have a heart, but is clearly loyal and generous and probably capable of being much more. He holds no grudge against Father Jerry, and genuinely cares about the kids. At the same time, he's not hesitant about giving Frazier and Keefer exactly what's coming to them.
The performance of James Cagney and the unusual ending are the only things I can summon up much praise for. The direction by Michael Curtiz has some nice flourishes, especially in the rousing action sequences, but it's nothing special. The performances by O'Brien and Sheridan barely register. The kids are funny and engaging, but barely differentiated enough to be real characters. They aren't even credited separately, but as the "Dead End Kids," for one of their previous projects together. It's sort of fun to see Bogart playing such a straight villain role in his pre-stardom days, but it only serves to highlight how simple and shallow the film is. If it weren't for Cagney's charismatic portrayal of Rocky Sullivan, I doubt anyone would remember the film today.
Then again, there is that ending, which sticks in the mind not only because of how well executed it is, but because of what it represents. There used to be so much more debate over the portrayal of crime and criminals on film, on their social impact. Here we have a film where the filmmakers clearly felt a sense of responsibility toward their audience. Rocky had to be punished for his crimes under the Hays Code one way or another, but using the punishment as a means of redemption was far more interesting and fulfilling than Rocky simply getting carted off to jail or dying on the final firefight. It also allowed Cagney to subvert the image of the "tough guy" he was always trying to get away from, which is probably why he took the role in the first place.
Can you imagine a modern crime picture where the gun-toting badass hero realizes that he's contributing to the degeneracy of the American youth, and willingly destroys his own image of cool in repentance? Can you imagine the equivalent of the Pat O’Brien character being part of that decision without all the baggage of the religious viewpoint, because being a priest was shorthand for being the dispenser of proper morality in a film? Can you remember the last time intentional disillusionment of young children was a plot point? For better or for worse, "Angels With Dirty Faces" could have only been made in the 1930s, when Hollywood was far more innocent, and the bad guys, even the good-hearted ones, always got it in the end.
---
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
TJE 7/17 - Margaret (2011)
The story of the production of "Margaret" is easily as interesting as the film itself. Director Kenneth Lonergan wrestled with editing the film for years, and multiple delays sparked lawsuits and endless speculation. The final result is an ungainly film that really could use a few more passes in the editing bay. Running two-and-a-half hours, "Margaret" feels overlong, unfocused, and self-indulgent. However, it occasionally manages moments of real intensity and thoughtful insight.
Teenage Lisa (Anna Paquin) is a precocious, but irresponsible student, the kind of girl who will expend much more effort justifying why she cheated on a test than studying for one, and she's charismatic enough to get away with it. She lives with her mother Joan (J. Smith-Cameron), a busy, distracted actress, in Manhattan. Her father Karl, played by Lonergan, lives on the West Coast. One day Lisa witnesses, and may be the cause of a fatal bus accident. She distracts the driver, Maretti (Mark Ruffalo), causing him to run a light and strike a pedestrian, Monica (Allison Janney), who dies in the street while Lisa holds her. This has a profound effect on Lisa, who can't accept that it was just an accident. She seeks out Monica's best friend Emily (Jeannie Berlin), starts acting out in school, and loses her virginity on a whim to a classmate named Paul (Kieran Culkin).
"Margaret" is densely packed with minor characters, all revolving around Lisa. Matt Damon and Matthew Broderick play her math and literature teacher respectively. Jean Reno shows up for a few scenes as her mother's new boyfriend. They don't all neatly fit into the confines of the narrative. Surely we should see more of Mark Ruffalo's and Kieran Culkin's characters, considering the impact that they have on Lisa. Michael Ealy appears briefly as a lawyer friend of Emily's. He's introduced like he's about to become an important player, but disappears after a single scene. However, he makes the most of that scene and comes across as a full and complete character, and it's the same with the others as well. Everyone in "Margaret" has as sense of possibility about them, that we might find another, more interesting facet of the story there if only we had the time to linger a bit longer.
However, the film is built around Lisa, and the excellent performance of Anna Paquin. At times Lisa is sympathetic, and at times she is infuriating. After the accident she is frequently defensive and angry, hiding behind a mask of teenage sullenness and righteous indignation. When confronted, she cries persecution, but is never hesitant to land her own blows, particularly with her mother. Lisa may be articulate, but she lacks self-awareness and perspective. At the same time she clearly feels so keenly, it's easy to empathize with her, even as she uses her emotions as an excuse to feed her own ego. She talks and talks and talks, making her the ideal protagonist for a film that is largely built around conversations. Paquin grabs the spotlight and never gives it up.
It took a while to get used to Lonergan's dialogue, which is wordy and literate. I wasn't a fan of the more confrontational moments, where characters erupt at each other in torrents of precisely scripted back-and-forth that doesn't sound genuine to the ear. Who has such perfect sentence construction when they're busy biting someone's head off? However, I like his pauses, the way that he often insinuates thoughts and moods into the silent moments. A nice little throwaway scene occurs late in the film, when Matthew Broderick's teacher character passes Lisa and a friend in the park. They lob a few taunts at him, which he seems to ignore, but a quick shot of the back of his head emphasizes that he's taken in every word. Also, though scenes go on for unusually long stretches, Lonergan knows where to cut, and where to wait just a beat longer, to catch a reaction or allow someone's discomfort to sink it.
His film is great scene by scene, but the whole of "Margaret" never really coheres as it should. Smaller characters are left by the wayside too often. Some plot threads are sorely underdeveloped while others are dragged out endlessly. The final scene doesn't resonate as it should, because we never got quite enough time with one of the characters who is key to the ending. Also, the political and cultural references seem rather awkwardly shoehorned in. The post 9/11 parallels are pretty damn obvious without Lisa's contentious debates with a Syrian classmate, thanks. And the opera and literature references are awfully on-the-nose.
I've seen other critics hail "Margaret" as a great film, as one of the best American films of this era. I can't agree, because the flaws simply go too deep. I can see the greatness there, but it's not realized well enough to fulfill that potential. It is a very good film, though, and a noble attempt at being something more meaningful, more thoughtful, and more honest than most coming-of-age movies. And in the end it was well worth all the drama and effort of its creation.
---
Teenage Lisa (Anna Paquin) is a precocious, but irresponsible student, the kind of girl who will expend much more effort justifying why she cheated on a test than studying for one, and she's charismatic enough to get away with it. She lives with her mother Joan (J. Smith-Cameron), a busy, distracted actress, in Manhattan. Her father Karl, played by Lonergan, lives on the West Coast. One day Lisa witnesses, and may be the cause of a fatal bus accident. She distracts the driver, Maretti (Mark Ruffalo), causing him to run a light and strike a pedestrian, Monica (Allison Janney), who dies in the street while Lisa holds her. This has a profound effect on Lisa, who can't accept that it was just an accident. She seeks out Monica's best friend Emily (Jeannie Berlin), starts acting out in school, and loses her virginity on a whim to a classmate named Paul (Kieran Culkin).
"Margaret" is densely packed with minor characters, all revolving around Lisa. Matt Damon and Matthew Broderick play her math and literature teacher respectively. Jean Reno shows up for a few scenes as her mother's new boyfriend. They don't all neatly fit into the confines of the narrative. Surely we should see more of Mark Ruffalo's and Kieran Culkin's characters, considering the impact that they have on Lisa. Michael Ealy appears briefly as a lawyer friend of Emily's. He's introduced like he's about to become an important player, but disappears after a single scene. However, he makes the most of that scene and comes across as a full and complete character, and it's the same with the others as well. Everyone in "Margaret" has as sense of possibility about them, that we might find another, more interesting facet of the story there if only we had the time to linger a bit longer.
However, the film is built around Lisa, and the excellent performance of Anna Paquin. At times Lisa is sympathetic, and at times she is infuriating. After the accident she is frequently defensive and angry, hiding behind a mask of teenage sullenness and righteous indignation. When confronted, she cries persecution, but is never hesitant to land her own blows, particularly with her mother. Lisa may be articulate, but she lacks self-awareness and perspective. At the same time she clearly feels so keenly, it's easy to empathize with her, even as she uses her emotions as an excuse to feed her own ego. She talks and talks and talks, making her the ideal protagonist for a film that is largely built around conversations. Paquin grabs the spotlight and never gives it up.
It took a while to get used to Lonergan's dialogue, which is wordy and literate. I wasn't a fan of the more confrontational moments, where characters erupt at each other in torrents of precisely scripted back-and-forth that doesn't sound genuine to the ear. Who has such perfect sentence construction when they're busy biting someone's head off? However, I like his pauses, the way that he often insinuates thoughts and moods into the silent moments. A nice little throwaway scene occurs late in the film, when Matthew Broderick's teacher character passes Lisa and a friend in the park. They lob a few taunts at him, which he seems to ignore, but a quick shot of the back of his head emphasizes that he's taken in every word. Also, though scenes go on for unusually long stretches, Lonergan knows where to cut, and where to wait just a beat longer, to catch a reaction or allow someone's discomfort to sink it.
His film is great scene by scene, but the whole of "Margaret" never really coheres as it should. Smaller characters are left by the wayside too often. Some plot threads are sorely underdeveloped while others are dragged out endlessly. The final scene doesn't resonate as it should, because we never got quite enough time with one of the characters who is key to the ending. Also, the political and cultural references seem rather awkwardly shoehorned in. The post 9/11 parallels are pretty damn obvious without Lisa's contentious debates with a Syrian classmate, thanks. And the opera and literature references are awfully on-the-nose.
I've seen other critics hail "Margaret" as a great film, as one of the best American films of this era. I can't agree, because the flaws simply go too deep. I can see the greatness there, but it's not realized well enough to fulfill that potential. It is a very good film, though, and a noble attempt at being something more meaningful, more thoughtful, and more honest than most coming-of-age movies. And in the end it was well worth all the drama and effort of its creation.
---
Monday, July 16, 2012
TJE 7/16 – Kafka (1991)
"Kafka" is a quasi-biopic that takes the interesting approach of combining aspects of its subject's real life with elements of his most famous stories. However, the film is not just an ode to Franz Kafka's enduring work, but also to other notable cinema that Kafka had a strong influence on. It's hard not to look at the breathtaking black and white shots of shadowy streets and anonymous, lurking figures, and not think of Orson Welles' "The Trial" and "The Third Man." And there's a definite nod to Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" in some of the later, more fantastic set pieces.
We begin with Franz Kafka (Jeremy Irons) employed at a medical insurance firm in Prague. He spends his days in bureaucratic misery as a clerk, under the watchful gaze of his supervisor Burgel (Joel Grey), writing his stories on his own time as a hobby. One day his friend Eduard Rabin disappears, and Kafka becomes aware of a group of bombers, including the lovely Gabriela (Theresa Russell), who are fighting a mysterious, oppressive authority in the town, that may have been responsible for Eduard's disappearance. Their intentions are unknowns, but they headquartered in the inaccessible Castle where all of Kafka's records and reports are ultimately sent. After Gabriela disappears as well, Kafka investigates on his own, in spite of the warnings of the law, in the form of lnspector Grubach (Armin Mueller-Stahl), and the bureaucracy, embodied by the Chief Clerk (Alec Guinness).
What could be more appropriate for a film about Kafka than a paranoid conspiracy thriller? "Kafka" is full of shadowy men in long coats and dark hats who are up to no good, chases through winding streets and underground tunnels, and secretive, elliptical conversations. The plot resembles "The Trial" and "The Castle" the most closely, though some of Kafka's other works are namechecked. "Kafka" is patterned off of the German expressionist films, with a good dose of more modern film noir, and often looks like it was made sometime in the 1940s or 50s. Shadows and silhouettes loom large in small spaces, and the deceptively delicate score summons an atmosphere of creeping dread. The cinematography alone had me transfixed for a good hour, marveling over the period details and the old fashioned lighting schemes.
The story is a muddled affair, and the actors occasionally seemed lost amidst the half-baked conspiracies. Jeremy Irons doesn't get to do much as the hapless everyman that every Kafka hero ultimately is. The film, despite the title, has very little interest in giving us an accurate portrait of the writer, or any insights into his character beyond the commonly accepted historical details. However, Irons does lend a quiet reserve and intelligence to the role that is invaluable. Theresa Russell sticks out rather badly as Gabriela, but the rest of the supporting cast is excellent. It was a pleasant surprise to find actors like Armin Mueller-Stahl, Alec Guinness, Ian Holm, and Joel Grey among Kafka's chief tormentors.
I didn't mind the weaker plotting for most of the movie, since it only seemed to be an excuse to stage these wonderful scenes of suspense and mystery anyway. It was only toward the end, where the film tried to give us definitive answers, that things went seriously awry. The point of most Kafka stories is that there is no satisfying resolution and there are never definite answers. I won't go into much detail because far too many reviews give away too much about the relevant plot points, but it felt like that later segment of the film was part of an entirely different production, not just because of how it was presented, but because it seemed to switch genres for a few minutes as well. Was this intentional? If so, I suspect that the talented young director at the helm wasn't sure footed enough to pull it off.
The young director in question was Stephen Soderbergh, fresh from his success with "Sex, Lies, and Videotape." "Kafka" was only his second film, and remains an almost total outlier from the rest of his body of work. Perhaps it would be best to compare it to "The Good German," the black and white WWII film which Soderbergh made fifteen years later, with only the filmmaking techniques that would have been available in the 1940s. That film was also more style than substance, with a few modern touches that felt out of place. Were they simply made as technical exercises, so that the director could see whether he could work within these older styles and recreate the celebrated techniques of the cinema titans of old?
Perhaps, but "Kafka" comes across as more than just an imitation. The Welles style works beautifully for the material, and Soderbergh absolutely nailed the sinister mood and tone of the film. If nothing else, his "Kafka" was appropriately Kafka-esque.
---
We begin with Franz Kafka (Jeremy Irons) employed at a medical insurance firm in Prague. He spends his days in bureaucratic misery as a clerk, under the watchful gaze of his supervisor Burgel (Joel Grey), writing his stories on his own time as a hobby. One day his friend Eduard Rabin disappears, and Kafka becomes aware of a group of bombers, including the lovely Gabriela (Theresa Russell), who are fighting a mysterious, oppressive authority in the town, that may have been responsible for Eduard's disappearance. Their intentions are unknowns, but they headquartered in the inaccessible Castle where all of Kafka's records and reports are ultimately sent. After Gabriela disappears as well, Kafka investigates on his own, in spite of the warnings of the law, in the form of lnspector Grubach (Armin Mueller-Stahl), and the bureaucracy, embodied by the Chief Clerk (Alec Guinness).
What could be more appropriate for a film about Kafka than a paranoid conspiracy thriller? "Kafka" is full of shadowy men in long coats and dark hats who are up to no good, chases through winding streets and underground tunnels, and secretive, elliptical conversations. The plot resembles "The Trial" and "The Castle" the most closely, though some of Kafka's other works are namechecked. "Kafka" is patterned off of the German expressionist films, with a good dose of more modern film noir, and often looks like it was made sometime in the 1940s or 50s. Shadows and silhouettes loom large in small spaces, and the deceptively delicate score summons an atmosphere of creeping dread. The cinematography alone had me transfixed for a good hour, marveling over the period details and the old fashioned lighting schemes.
The story is a muddled affair, and the actors occasionally seemed lost amidst the half-baked conspiracies. Jeremy Irons doesn't get to do much as the hapless everyman that every Kafka hero ultimately is. The film, despite the title, has very little interest in giving us an accurate portrait of the writer, or any insights into his character beyond the commonly accepted historical details. However, Irons does lend a quiet reserve and intelligence to the role that is invaluable. Theresa Russell sticks out rather badly as Gabriela, but the rest of the supporting cast is excellent. It was a pleasant surprise to find actors like Armin Mueller-Stahl, Alec Guinness, Ian Holm, and Joel Grey among Kafka's chief tormentors.
I didn't mind the weaker plotting for most of the movie, since it only seemed to be an excuse to stage these wonderful scenes of suspense and mystery anyway. It was only toward the end, where the film tried to give us definitive answers, that things went seriously awry. The point of most Kafka stories is that there is no satisfying resolution and there are never definite answers. I won't go into much detail because far too many reviews give away too much about the relevant plot points, but it felt like that later segment of the film was part of an entirely different production, not just because of how it was presented, but because it seemed to switch genres for a few minutes as well. Was this intentional? If so, I suspect that the talented young director at the helm wasn't sure footed enough to pull it off.
The young director in question was Stephen Soderbergh, fresh from his success with "Sex, Lies, and Videotape." "Kafka" was only his second film, and remains an almost total outlier from the rest of his body of work. Perhaps it would be best to compare it to "The Good German," the black and white WWII film which Soderbergh made fifteen years later, with only the filmmaking techniques that would have been available in the 1940s. That film was also more style than substance, with a few modern touches that felt out of place. Were they simply made as technical exercises, so that the director could see whether he could work within these older styles and recreate the celebrated techniques of the cinema titans of old?
Perhaps, but "Kafka" comes across as more than just an imitation. The Welles style works beautifully for the material, and Soderbergh absolutely nailed the sinister mood and tone of the film. If nothing else, his "Kafka" was appropriately Kafka-esque.
---
Sunday, July 15, 2012
TJE 7/15 – Goon (2011)
I'm seriously conflicted about "Goon." It's the story of a bouncer named Doug Glatt (Seann William Scott), who gets into fights at the drop of a hat, and is a terrible disappointment to the rest of his family. Then one day, he gets into an altercation at a hockey game, and withstands such a beating that he's recruited to be an enforcer for the local team. Doug can't really play hockey, but he's an excellent bruiser, which eventually gets him placed with the minor league Halifax Highlanders. There, he faces contentious teammates, a dysfunctional team dynamic, and a chance at love with a girl named Eva (Allison Pill).
Based on a true story, "Goon" follows the template of your average sports movie. Unlikely local man beats the odds, joins the big sports team, and helps them to victory. However, "Goon" isn't really interested in being an inspiration as it is in showing a rougher, unvarnished side of the sport that the public doesn't get to see. In this case, it's the incredible amount of violence that Doug's position requires, and the nonstop jackassery going on behind the scenes - often aimed at guys who are on the same team. There is so much swearing in this movie, I eventually just became numb to it. Doug's best friend Pat (Jay Baruchel, also one of the credited writers) literally cannot go two lines without using crude language or lobbing ugly insults at someone. Admittedly, one of the funnier scenes is when he finds himself seated near Doug's straight-laced parents (Eugene Levy, Ellen David) during a game, and totally fails at trying to stop the onslaught coming out of his own mouth.
And then there's the violence. If you like hockey fights, "Goon" has tons of them, and they're brutal, graphic, and clearly one of the big selling points. The whole film builds up to the face-off between Doug and his idol, Ross Rhea (Liev Schreiber), who pulled a dirty stunt that injured Doug's troubled teammate Xavier Laflamme (Marc-André Grondin) in a previous game. I went into "Goon" thinking that I was going to be watching a hockey movie, but it was more like watching a boxing or MMA movie. Instead of getting in the ring, Doug gets out on the ice, where it's always inevitable that things will come to blows. For people who like hockey fights, that's great, but I'm a hockey fan who always found the fighting to be one of those little quirks of the game that I could take or leave. Is it odd that I actually wanted to see more of the hockey than the lip-splitting and face-pummeling?
Though I respect that the filmmakers wanted to show the harder-edged reality of this corner of the hockey culture, I had a really tough time with the overwhelming nastiness of the content, to the point where it was hard to stay focused on what was going on. It doesn't help that the film plays fast and loose with timelines and Doug's skill level. One minute he can barely skate, and the next he's pitching in to score goals, upstaging other players. We barely see any of his development as a player onscreen. Instead, it's just fight after fight, intercut with his developing relationship with Eva and teambuilding with the other guys. I wish we'd seen more of some of the other players. The script takes the time to introduce many of them, but they barely figure into the plot at all.
I liked Seann William Scott here, in a role that really plays to his strengths. Doug is dumb, but very self-aware, loyal, and good-natured. He doesn't let the behavior of his teammates, the disapproval of his family, or the cynicism of anyone else get him down. When he tries to win over Eva, he's genuinely sweet, and willing to overlook the fact that she is a self-described "bad girlfriend" who sets off a lot of warning bells. He fits what "Goon " is going for, which is to demystify the idea of a sports hero to a certain extent, and spotlight a guy who accepts that he has certain limitations, but is able to find glory within those limitations. I also liked Liev Schreiber, who gets in a few good scenes. And add another winning turn by Allison Pill to the pile. Would someone please give this woman bigger parts already?
At best, "Goon" is a very unconventional sports movie that is trying to bring something different to the table. However, I don't think it's well executed enough to escape its niche. For a certain breed of hockey fans, "Goon" should go over very well, but I wouldn't recommend it for general audiences. There's just too much sports culture shock if you're not familiar with the game, and too much potentially squicky content even if you are.
---
Based on a true story, "Goon" follows the template of your average sports movie. Unlikely local man beats the odds, joins the big sports team, and helps them to victory. However, "Goon" isn't really interested in being an inspiration as it is in showing a rougher, unvarnished side of the sport that the public doesn't get to see. In this case, it's the incredible amount of violence that Doug's position requires, and the nonstop jackassery going on behind the scenes - often aimed at guys who are on the same team. There is so much swearing in this movie, I eventually just became numb to it. Doug's best friend Pat (Jay Baruchel, also one of the credited writers) literally cannot go two lines without using crude language or lobbing ugly insults at someone. Admittedly, one of the funnier scenes is when he finds himself seated near Doug's straight-laced parents (Eugene Levy, Ellen David) during a game, and totally fails at trying to stop the onslaught coming out of his own mouth.
And then there's the violence. If you like hockey fights, "Goon" has tons of them, and they're brutal, graphic, and clearly one of the big selling points. The whole film builds up to the face-off between Doug and his idol, Ross Rhea (Liev Schreiber), who pulled a dirty stunt that injured Doug's troubled teammate Xavier Laflamme (Marc-André Grondin) in a previous game. I went into "Goon" thinking that I was going to be watching a hockey movie, but it was more like watching a boxing or MMA movie. Instead of getting in the ring, Doug gets out on the ice, where it's always inevitable that things will come to blows. For people who like hockey fights, that's great, but I'm a hockey fan who always found the fighting to be one of those little quirks of the game that I could take or leave. Is it odd that I actually wanted to see more of the hockey than the lip-splitting and face-pummeling?
Though I respect that the filmmakers wanted to show the harder-edged reality of this corner of the hockey culture, I had a really tough time with the overwhelming nastiness of the content, to the point where it was hard to stay focused on what was going on. It doesn't help that the film plays fast and loose with timelines and Doug's skill level. One minute he can barely skate, and the next he's pitching in to score goals, upstaging other players. We barely see any of his development as a player onscreen. Instead, it's just fight after fight, intercut with his developing relationship with Eva and teambuilding with the other guys. I wish we'd seen more of some of the other players. The script takes the time to introduce many of them, but they barely figure into the plot at all.
I liked Seann William Scott here, in a role that really plays to his strengths. Doug is dumb, but very self-aware, loyal, and good-natured. He doesn't let the behavior of his teammates, the disapproval of his family, or the cynicism of anyone else get him down. When he tries to win over Eva, he's genuinely sweet, and willing to overlook the fact that she is a self-described "bad girlfriend" who sets off a lot of warning bells. He fits what "Goon " is going for, which is to demystify the idea of a sports hero to a certain extent, and spotlight a guy who accepts that he has certain limitations, but is able to find glory within those limitations. I also liked Liev Schreiber, who gets in a few good scenes. And add another winning turn by Allison Pill to the pile. Would someone please give this woman bigger parts already?
At best, "Goon" is a very unconventional sports movie that is trying to bring something different to the table. However, I don't think it's well executed enough to escape its niche. For a certain breed of hockey fans, "Goon" should go over very well, but I wouldn't recommend it for general audiences. There's just too much sports culture shock if you're not familiar with the game, and too much potentially squicky content even if you are.
---
Saturday, July 14, 2012
TJE 7/14 - Mirror Mirror (2012)
When people think of Disney movies, they tend to think of the animated films. When I think of Disney movies, I'm just as likely to think of their tradition of light comedic "family films," which all have this aggressively peppy, enthusiastic attitude, extremely simple characters, lots of broad slapstick humor, a heavy reliance on platitudes and sloganeering, and usually a very obvious message.
"Mirror Mirror" is one of these films, and the message is your typical modern girl power rally, mixed into the traditional princess narrative of finding and landing a Prince Charming. The modern Snow White should not only be refined and beautiful and sweet, but a defender of the oppressed, on the path to becoming a benevolent ruler. Additionally, she should be able to hold her own in a sword fight with her prince, and rescue him too if she has to. How is she to accomplish this? "Believe!" the film declares, and then throws all matter of visual distractions at us before we can ask about specifics.
"Mirror Mirror" is really all about the visual distractions. The main selling point of the film is not Julia Roberts, headlining as the Evil Queen, and it's not Armie Hammer and Lily Collins, who are playing our young heroes. It's the Indian director Tarsem, who is known for his elaborately ornate visuals in films like "The Cell," "The Fall," and "Immortals." With no small amount of help from the late costume designer Eiko Ishioka, he creates a fairy-tale kingdom of striking shapes and lush colors. The Queen's golden throne and court gown dominate the whole the room. The dwarves disguise themselves as giants, using stilts that resemble accordion bellows. The Queen's secret hideaway on the other side of her magic mirror resembles a sinister bird, an echo of the brighter peacock images she is associated with throughout the film. Unlike other fantasy films, the screen is never overly busy or cluttered, with plenty of space to appreciate the effect of individual parts of the art design and costume pieces.
I wish Tarsem's talents had been put to use for better material, but "Mirror Mirror" is a very slight film, probably best enjoyed by small children and tired adults who aren't really paying attention to the dialogue, but will appreciate the parade of pretty colors. Roberts narrates the story as The Queen, who married Snow White's widowed father, The King, and took over the kingdom after he disappeared many years ago. She's in the process of running it into the ground when the story starts, having taxed the people to the brink of starvation. An opportunity appears in the form of Prince Alcott (Armie Hammer), who lands on her doorstep after being accosted by the seven dwarves, bandit thieves who live in the nearby woods. The Queen resolves to marry him for his money, organizing an elaborate ball that requires squeezing the people for even more funds. Meanwhile, Snow White (Lily Collins) has just turned eighteen, and after sneaking out of the castle discovers just how dire the situation is. She resolves to take back her kingdom and defeat The Queen.
If you're wondering where the huntsman is, there isn't one. We just have Nathan Lane playing Brighton, the Queen's chief toady, who gets the job of taking Snow White out into the woods at one point to kill her, but predictably bungles the job. He's really only there for comic relief, in a film that frequently goes off on comic digressions that aren't as funny as they should be. There are the Queen's icky beauty treatments, the prince falling victim to a botched love potion, and most of the business with the seven dwarves, who remain very minor characters in this version. If you've seen the trailers, rest assured that the worst of their punning, including the infamous "Snow way!" line, has been left on the cutting room floor. What remains is best described as agreeably high energy, but only mildly amusing.
In spite of the weak dialogue, I did enjoy the performances. Lily Collins has become a much more solid screen presence since I last saw her in "Priest," and Armie Hammer actually has some pretty good comic timing. I look forward to seeing him again in "Lone Ranger" next year. Julia Roberts gets most of the fun stuff, sniping about common fairy tale conventions, grumbling about her fading looks and Brighton's incompetence, and generally acting more like an impossible, spoiled prima donna than a truly evil harridan. I think the film could have used more of her, but then I'm also glad they didn't overuse her either. A little of Roberts goes a long way, and in spite of what all the marketing would have you believe, this isn't really her movie.
"Mirror Mirror" is a piece of fluff in the end, inoffensive and harmless. It aims so low that you can't say it doesn't meet expectations, but at the same time it's a little depressing that such a gorgeous film with such talented actors really amounts to so little. There are one or two inventive little twists that show the film did have the potential to do something more daring and interesting. Instead they just stuffed the Snow White story into the new Disney formula, which isn't much of an improvement over the old one.
---
"Mirror Mirror" is one of these films, and the message is your typical modern girl power rally, mixed into the traditional princess narrative of finding and landing a Prince Charming. The modern Snow White should not only be refined and beautiful and sweet, but a defender of the oppressed, on the path to becoming a benevolent ruler. Additionally, she should be able to hold her own in a sword fight with her prince, and rescue him too if she has to. How is she to accomplish this? "Believe!" the film declares, and then throws all matter of visual distractions at us before we can ask about specifics.
"Mirror Mirror" is really all about the visual distractions. The main selling point of the film is not Julia Roberts, headlining as the Evil Queen, and it's not Armie Hammer and Lily Collins, who are playing our young heroes. It's the Indian director Tarsem, who is known for his elaborately ornate visuals in films like "The Cell," "The Fall," and "Immortals." With no small amount of help from the late costume designer Eiko Ishioka, he creates a fairy-tale kingdom of striking shapes and lush colors. The Queen's golden throne and court gown dominate the whole the room. The dwarves disguise themselves as giants, using stilts that resemble accordion bellows. The Queen's secret hideaway on the other side of her magic mirror resembles a sinister bird, an echo of the brighter peacock images she is associated with throughout the film. Unlike other fantasy films, the screen is never overly busy or cluttered, with plenty of space to appreciate the effect of individual parts of the art design and costume pieces.
I wish Tarsem's talents had been put to use for better material, but "Mirror Mirror" is a very slight film, probably best enjoyed by small children and tired adults who aren't really paying attention to the dialogue, but will appreciate the parade of pretty colors. Roberts narrates the story as The Queen, who married Snow White's widowed father, The King, and took over the kingdom after he disappeared many years ago. She's in the process of running it into the ground when the story starts, having taxed the people to the brink of starvation. An opportunity appears in the form of Prince Alcott (Armie Hammer), who lands on her doorstep after being accosted by the seven dwarves, bandit thieves who live in the nearby woods. The Queen resolves to marry him for his money, organizing an elaborate ball that requires squeezing the people for even more funds. Meanwhile, Snow White (Lily Collins) has just turned eighteen, and after sneaking out of the castle discovers just how dire the situation is. She resolves to take back her kingdom and defeat The Queen.
If you're wondering where the huntsman is, there isn't one. We just have Nathan Lane playing Brighton, the Queen's chief toady, who gets the job of taking Snow White out into the woods at one point to kill her, but predictably bungles the job. He's really only there for comic relief, in a film that frequently goes off on comic digressions that aren't as funny as they should be. There are the Queen's icky beauty treatments, the prince falling victim to a botched love potion, and most of the business with the seven dwarves, who remain very minor characters in this version. If you've seen the trailers, rest assured that the worst of their punning, including the infamous "Snow way!" line, has been left on the cutting room floor. What remains is best described as agreeably high energy, but only mildly amusing.
In spite of the weak dialogue, I did enjoy the performances. Lily Collins has become a much more solid screen presence since I last saw her in "Priest," and Armie Hammer actually has some pretty good comic timing. I look forward to seeing him again in "Lone Ranger" next year. Julia Roberts gets most of the fun stuff, sniping about common fairy tale conventions, grumbling about her fading looks and Brighton's incompetence, and generally acting more like an impossible, spoiled prima donna than a truly evil harridan. I think the film could have used more of her, but then I'm also glad they didn't overuse her either. A little of Roberts goes a long way, and in spite of what all the marketing would have you believe, this isn't really her movie.
"Mirror Mirror" is a piece of fluff in the end, inoffensive and harmless. It aims so low that you can't say it doesn't meet expectations, but at the same time it's a little depressing that such a gorgeous film with such talented actors really amounts to so little. There are one or two inventive little twists that show the film did have the potential to do something more daring and interesting. Instead they just stuffed the Snow White story into the new Disney formula, which isn't much of an improvement over the old one.
---
Friday, July 13, 2012
TJE 7/13 – Happiness (1998)
So I've watched my first Todd Solondz film. I knew the director by reputation, but hadn't braved his work until now, because I was always a little wary of him. Solondz is the creator of very, very black comedies about dysfunctional domestic relationships, sexual deviancies, and all kinds of controversial material. In "Happiness," his second film, the main characters include a man with perverse sexual fantasies who makes anonymous, sexually explicit phone calls to unsuspecting women, and a pedophile who likes young boys and has detailed discussions of sexual matters with his own eleven year-old son. Are you cringing yet?
From the very first scene, Solondz insists on the audience's discomfort. We see a man and a woman played by Jon Lovitz and Jane Adams seated together at a restaurant. They exchange empty pleasantries, but it is obvious that the man is extremely upset and the woman is very tense. The conversation goes on, becoming more strained by the second. Eventually it comes out that they are a couple who have just broken up, and the conversation takes an ugly turn from banal to vicious. For the first third of the film or so, "Happiness" is a string of these horrible conversations, one after another. The pervert, Allen (Philip Seymour Hoffman), has a session with his therapist, Bill Maplewood (Dylan Baker), who ignores him. Maplewood then sees his therapist, and never quite admits that he's a pedophile, which we learn immediately afterwards. The woman from the restaurant, Joy, discusses the breakup with her sister Trish (Cynthia Stevenson), whose well-intentioned pep-talk reveals how pathetic she thinks Joy is. Allen fails to strike up a conversation with Helen (Lara Flynn Boyle), the neighbor he has been fantasizing about, while they are in the elevator together. Maplewood and his son Billy (Rufus Read) have a frank talk about the mechanics of ejaculation. Lenny (Ben Gazzara) leaves Mona (Louise Lasser), his wife of forty years, but insists that they are not getting divorced.
Some of the content here is downright disturbing. "Happiness" was given an NC-17 rating, mostly for a couple of semi-explicit masturbation scenes. Nearly all the actual sex and the rest of the controversial stuff is kept safely offscreen, but plenty is implied and alluded to. The dialogue by itself is extremely explicit, detailing rapes and molestations and lurid sexual fantasies that become very difficult to sit through. Worse are the attitudes of the characters, who show little remorse or self-awareness of how vile and terrible their behavior is. But after introducing us to this collection of screwed-up, miserable people, "Happiness" slowly reveals that it's after more than just the audience's shock and disdain. Just when you think that you couldn't be more disgusted with Allen, or more horrified by Dr. Maplewood, Solondz goes and humanizes them. Many of the stories in "Happiness" conclude in a strangely touching and poignant fashion, in spite of all the cynicism and meanness that preceded them. You may find, that in spite of whatever moral judgments you may make about the characters, you sympathize with them in the end.
This is due in large part to the performances, which are difficult and impressive. "Happiness" was one of the films that brought Philip Seymour Hoffman to prominence in the late 90s. As Allen he is utterly repulsive, a leering, heavy breathing, physically unkempt creep who you want to keep a distance from instinctively. However, his desperation and his loneliness come through, and there's the sense that when you get away from his sexual problems, he may actually be a good guy somewhere underneath. Maybe even better is the performance of Dylan Baker, who plays Dr. Maplewood with such awful likeability, in some scenes you actually want him to get away with the unthinkable. Baker is one of those actors who seems to be everywhere, but he rarely plays anything with real substance. This is probably the best role he ever had. The women in the cast don't get nearly as much juicy material to work with, but Jane Adams is a standout as the hapless Joy. She plays about the most conventionally normal character in the cast, and she's a mess. Camryn Manheim and Jared Harris also appear in smaller, but important parts.
And what about Todd Solondz? He certainly has a distinctive style, which is low budget, but enough to place his characters in a slightly heightened, surreal version of reality which is very heavy on the irony. The score frequently sounds like it's been lifted from a saccharine 90s family movie, and many scenes take place in cheerfully lit suburban homes and apartments, to contrast with all the perversity and discomfort of the actual content. 90% of what makes "Happiness" a comedy is this malevolent glee that Solondz seems to take in juxtaposing the normal and comforting with the abnormal and the deeply upsetting. For this reason, I don't think "Happiness" will work for everyone. Sometimes it's too obvious about its intentions. But it worked for me.
---
From the very first scene, Solondz insists on the audience's discomfort. We see a man and a woman played by Jon Lovitz and Jane Adams seated together at a restaurant. They exchange empty pleasantries, but it is obvious that the man is extremely upset and the woman is very tense. The conversation goes on, becoming more strained by the second. Eventually it comes out that they are a couple who have just broken up, and the conversation takes an ugly turn from banal to vicious. For the first third of the film or so, "Happiness" is a string of these horrible conversations, one after another. The pervert, Allen (Philip Seymour Hoffman), has a session with his therapist, Bill Maplewood (Dylan Baker), who ignores him. Maplewood then sees his therapist, and never quite admits that he's a pedophile, which we learn immediately afterwards. The woman from the restaurant, Joy, discusses the breakup with her sister Trish (Cynthia Stevenson), whose well-intentioned pep-talk reveals how pathetic she thinks Joy is. Allen fails to strike up a conversation with Helen (Lara Flynn Boyle), the neighbor he has been fantasizing about, while they are in the elevator together. Maplewood and his son Billy (Rufus Read) have a frank talk about the mechanics of ejaculation. Lenny (Ben Gazzara) leaves Mona (Louise Lasser), his wife of forty years, but insists that they are not getting divorced.
Some of the content here is downright disturbing. "Happiness" was given an NC-17 rating, mostly for a couple of semi-explicit masturbation scenes. Nearly all the actual sex and the rest of the controversial stuff is kept safely offscreen, but plenty is implied and alluded to. The dialogue by itself is extremely explicit, detailing rapes and molestations and lurid sexual fantasies that become very difficult to sit through. Worse are the attitudes of the characters, who show little remorse or self-awareness of how vile and terrible their behavior is. But after introducing us to this collection of screwed-up, miserable people, "Happiness" slowly reveals that it's after more than just the audience's shock and disdain. Just when you think that you couldn't be more disgusted with Allen, or more horrified by Dr. Maplewood, Solondz goes and humanizes them. Many of the stories in "Happiness" conclude in a strangely touching and poignant fashion, in spite of all the cynicism and meanness that preceded them. You may find, that in spite of whatever moral judgments you may make about the characters, you sympathize with them in the end.
This is due in large part to the performances, which are difficult and impressive. "Happiness" was one of the films that brought Philip Seymour Hoffman to prominence in the late 90s. As Allen he is utterly repulsive, a leering, heavy breathing, physically unkempt creep who you want to keep a distance from instinctively. However, his desperation and his loneliness come through, and there's the sense that when you get away from his sexual problems, he may actually be a good guy somewhere underneath. Maybe even better is the performance of Dylan Baker, who plays Dr. Maplewood with such awful likeability, in some scenes you actually want him to get away with the unthinkable. Baker is one of those actors who seems to be everywhere, but he rarely plays anything with real substance. This is probably the best role he ever had. The women in the cast don't get nearly as much juicy material to work with, but Jane Adams is a standout as the hapless Joy. She plays about the most conventionally normal character in the cast, and she's a mess. Camryn Manheim and Jared Harris also appear in smaller, but important parts.
And what about Todd Solondz? He certainly has a distinctive style, which is low budget, but enough to place his characters in a slightly heightened, surreal version of reality which is very heavy on the irony. The score frequently sounds like it's been lifted from a saccharine 90s family movie, and many scenes take place in cheerfully lit suburban homes and apartments, to contrast with all the perversity and discomfort of the actual content. 90% of what makes "Happiness" a comedy is this malevolent glee that Solondz seems to take in juxtaposing the normal and comforting with the abnormal and the deeply upsetting. For this reason, I don't think "Happiness" will work for everyone. Sometimes it's too obvious about its intentions. But it worked for me.
---
Thursday, July 12, 2012
TJE 7/12 – Papillon (1973)
Franklin J. Schaffner is one of those directors that nobody ever remembers, and quite unfairly. After watching "The Boys From Brazil," I went poking around in his list of credits and was astonished to discover that this was the man who had directed "Planet of the Apes" and "Patton," one right after the other. He had also directed "Papillon," one of those films that I kept meaning to watch for a long time, because it had Dustin Hoffman in it, and one of the last screenplays by the great Dalton Trumbo.
In 1930s France, Henri Charrière (Steve McQueen), nicknamed "Papillon" for the butterfly tattoo on his chest, is wrongly convicted of murdering a pimp, and shipped off to a penal colony on Devil's Island, off the coast of French Guiana. The prison is notoriously brutal, and most of the other prisoners are resigned to never seeing France again. Papillon has other ideas. He becomes the bodyguard of a forger, a weaker, bookish man named Louis Dega (Dustin Hoffman), so that Dega will fund his escape. However, after being subjected to hard labor, terrible conditions, and worse treatment by the guards together, the two become friends. "Papillon" charts the long years of their lives spent on Devil's Island, seeing them through botched escape attempts, stints in solitary confinement, starvation, sickness, and worse.
"Papillon" was based on the memoirs of the real Henri Charrière, and it almost seems like a spoiler to know even that much, because this is one of those prison movies that is so harsh and so unrelenting, it's not clear whether or not our heroes are going to be alive at the end of it, let alone in any sort of condition to be writing memoirs. Prisoners die left and right from illness, exhaustion, malnutrition, and brutal treatment. It's the little details that sell it, the way the prisoners are hosed down on the transport ship, or the method of dispensing haircuts to the men in solitary confinement. Despite so much of "Papillon" dealing with incarceration, the story is sprawling and epic. Papillon's escape attempts lead to encounters with bounty hunters, a leper colony, and friendly natives. We see glimpses of other colonists, mostly military men and adventurers. Though not filmed in South America, the tropical Jamaican locations are a good stand-in, especially when aided by the sweeping cinematography of Fred J. Koenekamp.
I was more interested in the performance of Dustin Hoffman going into the film, because he's been one of my favorite actors for as long as I can remember, but it was Steve McQueen who really sold the picture. "Papillon" is pretty much two-and-a-half hours of watching this man being broken down by an incredibly cruel system of authority. Unlike in "The Great Escape," the damage goes deep and there's no way he's going to bounce back so easily. Particularly harrowing are the solitary confinement scenes, where there's nothing left to fight or outsmart, and Papillon must simply endure the insidious ravages of time, silence, and isolation. McQueen was known for being an icon of cool, which works well to establish him as the strong-willed hero who will never stop trying to escape, but it's when he's really tested and really suffering that he's at his most arresting. Because of the demands of the script, I don't think he has the chance to get really deep into the character, as Paul Newman did with Cool Hand Luke, but it's still one hell of a performance.
And then there's Dustin Hoffman as Dega, a little man with big, thick glasses who has absolutely no intention of escaping, believing that his best chance off of Devil's Island is through appeals going through the courts back home. He's our everyman to Papillon's rugged action hero, the one who gets injured easily and always looks awkwardly out of place in the jungle, but pulls his weight nonetheless. Hoffman's not pushing any boundaries here, playing a variation of the nebbish with hidden strength we'd already seen in films like "Straw Dogs," but he gives Dega such humanity and appeal, he's really invaluable to the film. "Papillon" easily could have been told from his point of view, and it might have been a more interesting film if it was.
"Papillon" recalls all those inspirational 60s war films about brave men overcoming impossible adversity. However, it's a little too simple and straightforward to match up to the real greats of the genre. Papillon is a terribly admirable individual, but we never do find out much about him. However, the gorgeous scenery, which Schaffner practically manages to turn into the film's third lead, is a treat for the eyes. The performances of McQueen and Hoffman are excellent, and actors have a great rapport with each other. The film may not be great, but it's still exciting, engaging, and frequently moving.
I'm not sorry I put off watching "Papillon," but I'm glad that I finally did see it.
---
In 1930s France, Henri Charrière (Steve McQueen), nicknamed "Papillon" for the butterfly tattoo on his chest, is wrongly convicted of murdering a pimp, and shipped off to a penal colony on Devil's Island, off the coast of French Guiana. The prison is notoriously brutal, and most of the other prisoners are resigned to never seeing France again. Papillon has other ideas. He becomes the bodyguard of a forger, a weaker, bookish man named Louis Dega (Dustin Hoffman), so that Dega will fund his escape. However, after being subjected to hard labor, terrible conditions, and worse treatment by the guards together, the two become friends. "Papillon" charts the long years of their lives spent on Devil's Island, seeing them through botched escape attempts, stints in solitary confinement, starvation, sickness, and worse.
"Papillon" was based on the memoirs of the real Henri Charrière, and it almost seems like a spoiler to know even that much, because this is one of those prison movies that is so harsh and so unrelenting, it's not clear whether or not our heroes are going to be alive at the end of it, let alone in any sort of condition to be writing memoirs. Prisoners die left and right from illness, exhaustion, malnutrition, and brutal treatment. It's the little details that sell it, the way the prisoners are hosed down on the transport ship, or the method of dispensing haircuts to the men in solitary confinement. Despite so much of "Papillon" dealing with incarceration, the story is sprawling and epic. Papillon's escape attempts lead to encounters with bounty hunters, a leper colony, and friendly natives. We see glimpses of other colonists, mostly military men and adventurers. Though not filmed in South America, the tropical Jamaican locations are a good stand-in, especially when aided by the sweeping cinematography of Fred J. Koenekamp.
I was more interested in the performance of Dustin Hoffman going into the film, because he's been one of my favorite actors for as long as I can remember, but it was Steve McQueen who really sold the picture. "Papillon" is pretty much two-and-a-half hours of watching this man being broken down by an incredibly cruel system of authority. Unlike in "The Great Escape," the damage goes deep and there's no way he's going to bounce back so easily. Particularly harrowing are the solitary confinement scenes, where there's nothing left to fight or outsmart, and Papillon must simply endure the insidious ravages of time, silence, and isolation. McQueen was known for being an icon of cool, which works well to establish him as the strong-willed hero who will never stop trying to escape, but it's when he's really tested and really suffering that he's at his most arresting. Because of the demands of the script, I don't think he has the chance to get really deep into the character, as Paul Newman did with Cool Hand Luke, but it's still one hell of a performance.
And then there's Dustin Hoffman as Dega, a little man with big, thick glasses who has absolutely no intention of escaping, believing that his best chance off of Devil's Island is through appeals going through the courts back home. He's our everyman to Papillon's rugged action hero, the one who gets injured easily and always looks awkwardly out of place in the jungle, but pulls his weight nonetheless. Hoffman's not pushing any boundaries here, playing a variation of the nebbish with hidden strength we'd already seen in films like "Straw Dogs," but he gives Dega such humanity and appeal, he's really invaluable to the film. "Papillon" easily could have been told from his point of view, and it might have been a more interesting film if it was.
"Papillon" recalls all those inspirational 60s war films about brave men overcoming impossible adversity. However, it's a little too simple and straightforward to match up to the real greats of the genre. Papillon is a terribly admirable individual, but we never do find out much about him. However, the gorgeous scenery, which Schaffner practically manages to turn into the film's third lead, is a treat for the eyes. The performances of McQueen and Hoffman are excellent, and actors have a great rapport with each other. The film may not be great, but it's still exciting, engaging, and frequently moving.
I'm not sorry I put off watching "Papillon," but I'm glad that I finally did see it.
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
