Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Opening in Chicago, 01/27

I’m happy because I’m writing this listening to Philip Glass’s Kundun soundtrack. I bought the CD back when Kundun was released, but lost it in a move years ago. I never got around to replacing it, but found a used copy yesterday for $4. I really wish Criterion would put the movie out already, because who knows when I’ll ever get to see it again otherwise.

Albert Nobbs (trailer)
Director: Rodrigo Garcia (Things You Can Tell Just by Looking at Her, Nine Lives, Passengers, Mother and Child)
Personal Interest Factor: 6
Finally this is out, so now I don’t have to see the trailer again. I’ve seen it before almost every movie I’ve seen for months, and I can barely describe the feeling of deflation I experience when I see the LD/Roadside logo flash up on the screen and know it’s about to play. Nonetheless, it’s bittersweet, because I can already tell that the token indie trailer slot is going to be taken by Salmon Fishing in the Yemen, which looks pathetically vapid. So some Arabic sheik thinks it will be a “miracle for his people” if he can open a new vacation resort, eh? What’s the Arabic word for “Versailles”?
Metacritic: 57

The Grey (trailer)
Director: Joe Carnahan (Blood, Guts, Bullets and Octane, Narc, Smokin’ Aces, The A-Team)
Personal Interest Factor: 7
I’m a little surprised to notice that I’ve never seen one of Carnahan’s movies, but I have to imagine I’ll see this. Even if it’s shitty I’ll probably enjoy it somewhat, because I can watch just about anything that takes place in the snow. It’s a comfort thing for me, I guess. That’s especially true given our ridiculously mild winter so far here in Chicago; I’m just about willing to get stranded in the Arctic right now myself.
Metacritic: 67

Man on a Ledge (trailer)
Director: Asger Leth
Personal Interest Factor: 4
Trailer is pretty slick but the reviews are bad enough to scare me off. Reminds me of The Negotiator, back in the 1990s.
Metacritic: 41

Miss Bala
Director: Gerardo Naranjo (Drama/Mex, I’m Gonna Explode)
Personal Interest Factor: 7
Film about a beauty pageant contestant who is recruited as a drug mule. It’s Mexico’s submission for the Academy Awards, although it missed out on a nomination despite strong critical acclaim.
Metacritic: 81

A Separation (trailer)
Director: Asghar Farhadi
Personal Interest Factor: 9
Iranian film which did get an Oscar nomination, and one of the best-reviewed movies of the year, ranking third on Indiewire’s Critics Survey.
Metacritic: 95

Tomboy (trailer)
Director: Céline Sciamma (Water Lilies)
Personal Interest Factor: 6
French movie about, well, a tomboy. Actually, that’s not quite precise; it’s about a little girl who is mistaken for a boy and rolls with it. Kind of like Boys Don’t Cry for kids, I guess, though hopefully not so grim.
Metacritic: 74

We Need to Talk About Kevin (trailer)
Director: Lynne Ramsay (Ratcatcher, Morvern Caller)
Personal Interest Factor: 6
Another in the Indiewire top 20, so I should probably see it, but my tolerance for evil-child movies is extremely low. I still haven’t gotten over Joshua, one of my least favorite movies of the 2000s. Doesn’t help that it’s only playing at River East.
Metacritic: 71

Also this week:
Amador – Spanish film about immigrants in Madrid
One for the Money (trailer) – new Katherine Heigl movie

After the Oscar nominations are announced, there’s a temptation to try figure out what it all means, usually to no avail. I do think, though, that there are some things that resonate with this group of nominations, the 84th in Academy history.

At first blush, it would seem that studios trumped indies, or at least edgy indies. The biggest acting snubs, based on expectations (which often just feed on each in an ouroboros) were for Michael Fassbender for Shame, Tilda Swinton for We Need to Talk About Kevin, and Albert Brooks for Drive. All totaled, those three films got only one nomination (Drive, for Sound Editing). But, on the other hand, some categories were fragrantly fresh. In Best Actor, there were the expected heavyweights, George Clooney and Brad Pitt, but instead of Fassbender, and also instead of Leonardo DiCaprio (for J. Edgar), who had picked up a SAG and Golden Globe nomination, Demian Bichir, from the little-seen A Better Life, scored a nod. Another, milder surprise was that Gary Oldman, a longtime standout performer, got a nomination for his skillful underplaying in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. For those who always say that these things are predictable and boring, I submit this category in disagreement.

There were plenty of nonsurprises, though, especially in the Actress categories. Meryl Streep extended her record of acting nominations to 17. She has sat through more losses, though, than any other performer. Everyone keeps waiting for her to win her third Oscar–she might do it this year (though I think not).

In the Best Picture category, the rules changed so that anywhere from five to 10 films could get nominated. The requirement was that a film had to get five percent of the first place votes. Nine films made the cut. Most had predicted seven or eight, so I think the party crashers are The Tree of Life, which was a big favorite on critics list but not to the general public (I loved it, but admittedly there are a lot of WTF? moments), and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, which didn’t get a sniff from the Globes or the guilds, and has a below 50 rating on Metacritic. That it made it in may be a testimony to the power of Scott Rudin, or perhaps to its 9/11 subject matter (though this did not help United 93 or World Trade Center).

Extremely Loud is a bit of a throwback–it veers toward the sentimental, but not to the mawkish (at least I thought so). Many of the films in the nonette have a nostalgic bent. The Artist and Hugo are both tributes to silent films, while War Horse is consciously modeled on epics from the ’40s and ’50s. Midnight in Paris, Woody Allen’s return to this category, is about the notion that somehow the past is better than the present, while The Help deals with a difficult time period in a nonthreatening, Oprah Book Club kind of way. The only film from this group that feels modern to me is Moneyball, but even that has some tried and true sports cliches.

Some other ruminations on the nominations: As far as music goes, John Williams received his 46th and 47th (!) nominations, scoring twice in Best Original Score. The Best Song category is a joke–a list of eligible songs are listened to by the branch, who then score them on a 1-to-10 rating. Any song that rates 8.5 are higher can be nominated, but if none of them do the top two are nominated by default. It’s entirely possible that the two songs, one from The Muppets and the other from Rio, did not score higher than 8.5. This category should be ashbinned.

Brad Pitt could end up with three nominations. He’s nominated for acting and producing for Moneyball, and, pending a decision by the Academy, could be one of the producers for The Tree of Life (only three producers can receive nominations for Best Picture from any one film). Pitt could be only the third person to get two nominations in Best Picture in the same year (following Francis Coppola and Scott Rudin).

From now until Oscar night I will focus on the top six categories and my thoughts and predictions, but until then I can say what winner will earn the biggest whoop of delight from me–Mark Bridges, nominated for Best Costumes for The Artist, was a classmate of mine in the theater department at SUNY-Stony Brook with me. We appeared in a few plays together, including Romeo and Juliet (he was Mercutio, I was Benvolio). He was a good actor, but obviously a better costume designer. Go Mark!

The Oscar nominations will be announced bright and early on Tuesday morning, so here’s my last two cents on who will be nominated. I expect a few surprises, but most of these picks fall in line with a consensus that has built after the guilds and Golden Globes have made their picks. As a reminder, these are my predictions and do not factor in whether I liked the films or not.

BEST PICTURE

The Artist
The Descendants
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
The Help

Hugo
Midnight in Paris
Moneyball
War Horse

I’m going to go with eight nominations, although it could be anywhere from five to ten. If it’s five, The Artist, The Descendants, The Help, Hugo and Midnight in Paris figure to be in. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was aided immensely by David Fincher being nominated for Best Director by the DGA. To be nominated, a film must receive five percent of the first place votes cast. Moneyball I have in by a thread.

If the category goes to ten, add The Tree of Life, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, or Bridesmaids.
 \
BEST DIRECTOR


Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris
Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Alexander Payne, The Descendants
Martin Scorsese, Hugo
Tate Taylor, The Help

It would be boring to just parrot the DGA nominees, so I’ll substitute Taylor for Fincher. It will be interesting to see if Terence Malick gets any love for The Tree of Life, and if he can get nominated here without the film being nominated for Best Picture, which hasn’t happened yet since the Best Picture category expanded from five nominees.

BEST ACTOR


George Clooney, The Descendants
Leonardo DiCaprio, J. Edgar
Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Michael Fassbender, Shame
Brad Pitt, Moneyball

Clooney, Dujardin, and Pitt are locks. DiCaprio doesn’t belong here, but seems to have enough star power and enough good will to get by. The remaining spot should go to a man named Michael–Fassbender or Shannon, for Take Shelter. Gary Oldman for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is also a possibility, but slight.

BEST ACTRESS

Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs
Viola Davis, The Help
Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Tilda Swinton, We Need to Talk About Kevin
Michelle Williams, My Week With Marilyn


The consensus is, and I agree, that there are six women chasing five spots. The last spot will either go to Swinton, or to Rooney Mara for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. If anyone else gets in it will be a surprise.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Kenneth Branagh, My Week With Marilyn
Albert Brooks, Drive
Jonah Hill, Moneyball
Nick Nolte, Warrior
Christopher Plummer, Beginners

The most wide open category, there are another half-dozen or so actors who could gain a spot here, most likely Max von Sydow for Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Berenice Bejo, The Artist
Jessica Chastain, The Help
Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids
Octavia Spencer, The Help
Shailene Woodley, The Descendants


As with Actress, this category is six women chasing five spots, but only Bejo, Chastain, and Spencer are locks. Janet McTeer, for Albert Nobbs, is the other possibility. McCarthy received a SAG nomination but not a Golden Globe, while the opposite was true for Woodley. McTeer received both, which means I should have her here, but for some reason I don’t. Just a hunch.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

The Artist
Bridesmaids
Margin Call

Midnight in Paris
Win Win

Lots of room for other films here, including A Separation, 50/50, Beginners, Take Shelter, Tree of Life or Melancholia. The screenwriters branch is frequently the most adventurous.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

The Descendants
The Help
Hugo

Moneyball
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy



If The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo has a big day it could be here, too, but I’ll go with the more complex Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy to get the fifth spot.


BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

Footnote, Israel
In Darkness, Poland
Monsieur Lazhar, Canada
Pina, Germany
A Separation, Iran

The Academy makes this easier, by winnowing it down to nine semifinalists. Don’t know much about these films. Poland’s is about the Holocaust, so that should be in. Pina has the distinct possibility of being nominated for both Best Foreign Language and Best Documentary, which has never happened before.

BEST ANIMATED FILM

The Adventures of Tintin
Cars 2
Puss ‘n Boots
Rango

Rio

Ludicrously, the Academy will allow for five nominees in this category, because of the number of releases. Pixar, even in an off year, may get in, and though Rio kind of came and went it did get decent box office. But a relatively unknown film could knock one of them off and sneak in here.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

Bill Cunningham New York
Buck
Paradise Lost 3
Pina
Project Nim

This is a real crap shoot. I could be wrong on all five, though they are taken from a semifinalist list of 15.

Find out Tuesday morning how I did!

The word problematic is thrown around quite a bit, but here’s a movie that it really describes. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is an often moving film that deals with grief and closure, but is also often at arm’s length, because of a protagonist that I think few of us can identify with, or even tolerate for more than five minutes at a time.

The ads say this is not a 9/11 movie, but it sures seems like it to me. Tom Hanks plays the world’s greatest dad (really, he never gets mad?), a jeweler who enjoys sending his son on “reconnaissance missions” that require maps and clues. They are currently working on finding New York’s missing sixth borough (you would think Hanks wouldn’t lead his kid so astray on geography) when “the worst day” happens, and Hanks is killed in the Towers.

The boy, Oskar, played by Thomas Horn, spends a moody year before he can even go in his father’s closet, which is untouched. He finds a key, and, seeking to keep a connection to his father that is waning, endeavors to find what that key unlocks. A child who was tested for Asperger’s, Horn notes that the name “Black” is written on the outside of the envelope that contains the key. He sets about contacting every person named Black in the five boroughs of New York. It’s a good thing I wasn’t around, because I would have been the asshole that said, “What if they live in Jersey?”

Soon Horn is joined on his expedition by a mysterious lodger in his grandmother’s apartment, an old man (Max von Sydow), who does not speak, but has the words “Yes” and “No” tattooed on the palms of his hand, which is a nifty convenience. Von Sydow is such a good actor that at times I forgot he was mute, as you can read his thoughts in his expressions. Though he is a very fine performer, the character seems to exist only to get Horn over his fear of public transportation and bridges.

As I sit here a few hours later, it’s easy for me to pick apart this movie. For one, what American couple would name their kid Oskar? (this made me think of the main character with the same name in The Tin Drum, which is not who I should have been thinking of). The people Horn meets, most of them kind, seem like a Benetton ad (how many Chinese people people would have the surname Black?) But while I was watching it I was affected, mostly because director Stephen Daldry has managed to convince me that I was inside Oskar’s head, and how overstimulated he could be by events swirling around him.

But do I want to spend two hours in the company of a kid like this? Horn, for his part, does a fine job (I was interested to read he was discovered after winning $30,000 on the Jeopardy kids tournament) but the character is so full of tics (such as carrying a tambourine to calm him down) that it made me edgy. He is also not warm and cuddly–he is extremely cruel to his mother (Sandra Bullock, in one of the better performances I’ve seen her give). The film was based on novel by Jonathan Safran Foer, and perhaps being inside the head of a mildly autistic boy works better on the page–I haven’t read the book, but I did read The Curious Incident of the Dog in Night-Time, which is another book narrated by an autistic person. When you actually have to experience the mania of this child you feel like you’re trapped in a Chuck-E Cheese on a Saturday afternoon.

Daldry is a great craftsman, but as with The Reader, he isn’t a particularly great director when it comes to sympathetic characters. He and his editor, Claire Simpson, have made a technically brilliant film. The opening shots of silhouetted figures falling is unnervingly gripping. However, the score by Alexandre Desplat is incessant and overbearing.

The events of 9/11 will continue to be the stuff of movies, I suppose. I think this film does not make the mistake of treating that event as an excuse for a child to find himself, which would be insulting. I had feared a mawkish film, which we do not get. But there is a kind of near-magic realism that gives that day a fairy-tale quality, which could be offensive to some, but could also be an approach that makes it easier for others to cope. Again, this is all problematic.

My grade for Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close: B.

Opening in Chicago, 01/20

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (trailer)
Director: Stephen Daldry (Billy Elliot, The Hours, The Reader)
Personal Interest Factor: 6
Daldry has been somewhat comically nominated for Best Director Oscars for each of his first three efforts, but it sure doesn’t look like it’s going to happen this time. On the other hand, The Reader was not particularly well-reviewed either (58 Metacritic score), so who knows, although this time he doesn’t have the Weinsteins threatening to take hostages if the Academy doesn’t cooperate. I honestly don’t know what to make of the trailer.
Metacritic: 46

The Flowers of War (trailer)
Director: Zhang Yimou (House of Flying Daggers, Riding Alone for Thousands of Miles, Curse of the Golden Flower, A Woman, a Gun and a Noodle Shop)
Personal Interest Factor: 6
Indifferent reviews have greeted Zhang’s latest, starring Christian Bale in a movie about the rape of Nanking. I had no idea this film had already been released until I saw it was opening here this week, although I managed to see the trailer before Sherlock Holmes yesterday. Apparently it’s been hugely successful in China.
Metacritic: 46

Haywire (trailer)
Director: Steven Soderbergh (Che, The Girlfriend Experience, The Informant!, Contagion)
Personal Interest Factor: 8
By my count (and counting Che as one movie), this is the seventh Soderbergh movie released since I started writing Openings almost 6 years ago. I’m not going to research it too extensively, but I assume that moves him into the lead over Werner Herzog and Woody Allen, who both have six. Can’t think of any other serious contenders. Soderbergh actually has eight if we count Che as two movies, and nine if I count And Everything Is Going Fine, his Spalding Gray documentary that I think played a few shows here last year but didn’t get a real week-long run. Anyway, I’m interested to see if Haywire is any good.
Metacritic: 68

Norwegian Wood (trailer)
Director: Tran Anh Hung (The Scent of Green Papaya, Cyclo, The Vertical Ray of the Sun)
Personal Interest Factor: 6
Documentary about the Scandanavian lumber indust … wait, no, it’s a Japanese film about Tokyo students in the 1960s. My mistake. I thought I remembered this being a big critical hit that I’d have to see but the Metacritic score tells me that’s not quite right. Now I wonder if I just don’t remember hearing about it because Jonny Greenwood did the score.
Metacritic: 59

Pina (trailer)
Director: Wim Wenders (Buena Vista Social Club, The Million Dollar Hotel, Land of Plenty, Don’t Come Knocking)
Personal Interest Factor: 6
Documentary about choreographer Pina Bausch. This is Wenders’s highest profile release since Buena Vista Social Club, which was over a decade ago already. Problem is, it’s showing in 3D, and I don’t think I want to subject myself to that again. I’ve been meaning to watch Wings of Desire again for months; maybe I’ll just do that instead.
Metacritic: 82

Red Tails (trailer)
Director: Anthony Hemingway
Personal Interest Factor: 5
It’s probably just my imagination, but it seems like there’s a real WTF moment with audiences when the Lucasfilm logo shows in front of this trailer, followed by a WWII dogfight movie. Lucas used to produce non-Star Wars stuff from time to time, but these days Lucasfilm is almost 100% associated with Star Wars and, to a lesser extent, Indiana Jones. It’s been since 1994 that Radioland Murders came out, the last Lucas production that wasn’t part of either of those two franchises.
Metacritic: 43

Also this week:
King of Devil’s Island (trailer) – an actual Norwegian movie
My Reincarnation (trailer) – doc about a Tibetan Buddhist and his Italian son
Underworld: Awakening (trailer) – now in 3D!
The Wages of Fear – a new reissue, great film

I have never been a major fan of horror films as a genre but after seeing the 1978 British film ‘The Medusa Touch’ I gained a new respect for them . This isn’t because TMD is a particularly high-standard horror film – in fact it’s rather mediocre. But it’s notable in how it highlighted  how difficult it is to make a successful horror film.

The plot concerns French police detective Brunel  -in England on an exchange program – investigating the brutal assault of misanthropic-minded novelist John Morlar (Richard Burton), which almost killed him. As Brunel investigates, he discovers Morlar’s disturbing past and his belief that through psychic telekinesis, he has caused the deaths of family and major disasters. The more Brunel investigates, the more credible Morlar’s claims are.

Many of the elements are there for a quality horror film – good cast, script that doesn’t aim for gutter-level cheap thrills – but for all the hard work on display no fear and tension really comes through.

The plot does sound rather absurd as a concept but that seems hardly unusual for horror films. The premise for ‘Rosemary’s Baby’ seemed even more nonsensical but that worked terrifically well. Why doesn’t this?

One of the film’s main problems is how it frames Morlar. For TMD to work it needs to convince us of the concept of this seemingly ordinary man having the power to cause the destruction of humanity, but it fails. This is because of the way Morlar is framed in the film – he’s entirely viewed through the perception of people recounting him through flashback (mainly his psychiatrist played by Lee Remick).  This makes him too abstract a concept as a personality so we can’t really get inside his head and understand his motivations to make him really compelling.

This also leads to problems when the film tries to establish how misanthropic Morlar’s worldview is. We see glimpses of it here and there – particularly in a courtroom scene during Morlar’s earlier career as a lawyer (well-acted by Burton) but there’s no real context to it so instead of feeling like a considered worldview which makes his potential for destruction even more terrifying, it adds up to very little.

Surprisingly, for all the mayhem Morlar causes the most interesting character is that of his psychiatrist Zonfeld. Well played by the always appealing Remick, her character is more interesting because whereas Morlar is set out early on and his behaviour is fairly predictable, Zonfeld and her relationship is more of a mystery.  The increasing revelations about her help maintain the interest.

For most of the film, TMD does a good job of creating the right atmosphere to make Morlar’s abilities somewhat believable. But it seems to lose its nerve in the latter stages when it goes into specifics in talking about psychics and telekinesis, concepts that were already obvious to the audience. We even have a scene where Brunel watches grainy old footage demonstrating people with the ability to move objects? What’s the point of this? Surely he would’ve known about the concepts already? It seems to be there because the filmmakers lose their nerve and felt they needed to convince the audience some more.

The flashbacks to Morlar’s childhood and previous adult life are a mixed bag. Some (like the killing of his parents) come across as more silly then scary. Others like the destruction of his school in a fire, are more carefully developed to justify Morlar’s source of anger (you’ll rarely find a teacher as loathsome as the one here) so therefore more interesting

The greatest strength of the film is the performances. Despite his star billing as Morlar, Burton’s role actually isn’t that substantial but he does convey an effective amount of menace with his limited character. The real star of the film is Lilo Ventura who is excellent as  Brunel and creates a three-dimensional  persona of what is a fairly conventionally-written character. Indeed one wishes there were more films based around the adventures of his detective character. The cast is full of quality British acting talent, right down to Jeremy Brett (later famous as Sherlock Holmes on TV) who is excellent ina brief scene.

The script by John Briely (who believe it or not, would write ‘Gandhi’ just a few years later) strives for intellectual significance far above the conventional horror film but isn’t capable of breaking the conventions of the genre, resulting in a conventional climax reliant on special effects and destruction for its impact. Jack Gold’s direction is solid but rather dour.

The film is professionally done all-round and is watchable throughout. But it fails to frighten and excite so therefore it must be considered a failure. If nothing else, it does make one appreciate when a truly frightening and scary horror film does come along – they’re harder to do than they look.

Rating: C+

 

Though I lived through her tenure as British Prime Minister, I don’t know enough about British history to know what The Iron Lady does or does not get right. I do know that Margaret Thatcher was and is despised by liberals, and celebrated by conservatives (I remember George Will, one year in the ’80s, declaring that she was his choice for person of the year).

Let’s just grant that I’m not the kind of person that would be nostalgic for Margaret Thatcher. Therefore, I will try to limit my remarks to this film, directed by Phyllida Lloyd, to its cinematic value only. My first response is: why?

The script is written in a familiar biographic form–the remembrances of an old person. Thatcher, played by Meryl Streep, is first seen as if she were some typical woman buying milk at the corner store. Then she is seen having breakfast with her husband, Jim Broadbent. But everything is not as it seems, as indicated by the brief glimpse of a guard with a machine gun in the hallway. Thatcher is indeed a baroness, who slipped out to buy milk against the wishes of her staff, and her husband is dead. In her encroaching dementia, though, he stays with her.

Throughout the two or so days we spend with the elder Thatcher, her life flashes before her. Daughter of a grocer, who was also a mayor, she goes to Oxford, enters the man’s world of politics, and after losing at least one election, gets elected to Parliament in 1959. She marries Dennis Thatcher, and decides to run for party leader. She becomes Prime Minister, and with her conservative, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps philosophy, slashes the budget, wages war on Argentina, enrages unions, and finally gets so bossy that she’s pushed out.

As I walked out of the theater, I wondered, what was the point of this film? It seems to have no particular point of view. It does seem to try to bend over backwards to show us she was a loving wife and mother, but even Hitler had a girlfriend–that she seemed to have a normal home life doesn’t excuse anything. Later Lloyd, along with screenwriter Abi Morgan, show us how she was not beloved by all of her people, but aside from her belief that people with problems should fix it themselves, and not look to the government, there’s little of her political philosophy on hand. There’s a bit of her struggle as a woman in man’s world, by showing her in a sea of men in suits, the “lady member’s room” in the House of Commons basically a closet with an ironing board, but Thatcher wasn’t exactly Germaine Greer. I remember people, perhaps her critics, saying she was successful as a woman in politics because she thought just like a man.

So the film shows us Thatcher in her dotage, hallucinating her dead husband, who was a bit of a wag (at one point, he spoils the mystery she’s reading) and shows us the highlights of her life. One critic, I’m sorry that I can’t remember who, compared the film to Billy Joel’s song “We Didn’t Start the Fire”–”war in the Falklands!” There’s the obligatory scene showing her hotel room being bombed by the IRA, but there’s nothing in the script that tells us how she felt about that or what she thought of the Irish situation. It’s just a slide show.

As for Meryl Streep, she’s uncanny in how she can inhabit a character. She’s got the plummy British nuance of her voice down. The makeup focuses on her teeth, which is a bit distracting, but I think that’s because we know what Streep looks like, and therefore know exactly what is real and what is not. If an unknown actress had played the part the makeup wouldn’t have been an issue. I think I detected some leftover voice mannerisms from Streep’s portrayal of Julia Child, though.

The Iron Lady is competently made and acted, but I’m at a loss as to what it was supposed to make me think and feel. Sympathy? Admiration? Don’t judge too hastily? I don’t know. It certainly didn’t change my mind about Thatcher–I doubt it will for anyone, supporter and critic alike.

My grade for The Iron Lady: C-.

Opening in Chicago, 01/13

Carnage (trailer)
Director: Roman Polanski (The Ninth Gate, The Pianist, Oliver Twist, The Ghost Writer)
Personal Interest Factor: 7
I don’t think I would have guessed in a million years that this was a Polanski movie from the trailer if his name wasn’t on it, although setting a movie mostly in a confined space like an apartment is a pretty typical Polanski tactic. Should be fun as an actor’s showcase even if the consensus seems to be that it doesn’t add up to much. In other Polanski news, Paramount finally announced one of the very best American films ever made, Chinatown, for Blu-ray for April.
Metacritic: 60

Contraband (trailer)
Director: Baltasar Kormákur (101 Reykjavík, The Sea, Mýrin, Inhale)
Personal Interest Factor: 5
Somewhat generic-looking smuggling movie with Mark Wahlberg, personality-free Kate Beckinsale, and Giovanni Ribisi doing his best to become a supporting-actor equivalent to Nicolas Cage. Kormákur surely must be the only Icelandic director to make an American studio film in recent times.
Metacritic: 53

The Iron Lady (trailer)
Director: Phyllida Lloyd (Mamma Mia!)
Personal Interest Factor: 5
I don’t know what to make of this except that the trailer is damn awful, full of very superficial feminist sloganeering (“I have done battle every day!”) on behalf of a woman who detested feminism and what looks like the most obnoxious Meryl Streep performance it is possible to imagine (complete with a stupid-looking dental prosthetic).
Metacritic: 54

Also this week:
Beauty and the Beast – 3D reissue
Joyful Noise (trailer) – Queen Latifah/Dolly Parton gospel choir movie
Man on a Mission (trailer) – doc about a wealthy space tourist
Newlyweds (trailer) – new Edward Burns movie

I won’t pretend that I understood everything that happened in Tomas Alfredson’s Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. I think I got most of it, but let’s face it, the novel by John Le Carre (which I have not read) was once made into a seven-part series for the BBC. Clearly a two-hour film adaptation is going to leave stuff out and go at a freight-train pace. But though I longed to grab my fellow theater-goers as they left the theater to have a group debrief, I found the artistry of the film so impressive, and the conclusion so pulse-pounding that it made up for any fogginess on my part.

Set in 1973, during the Cold War, the film concerns the top brass of British Intelligence, known as “the circus.” The head of the organization, known only as “Control” (John Hurt), sends an agent to Hungary on a tip that information regarding a highly-placed Soviet double agent, or mole, is available. That mission goes disastrously awry, and Hurt is forced into retirement, along with one of his top agents, George Smiley (Gary Oldman). But when evidence of the mole reaches the ministry, Oldman is brought out of retirement to track him down. It is one of four men, each given a code name of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, or Poor Man (Smiley, once considered one of the suspects, was labeled “Spy.”)

So what we have is not a whodunit, but a whoisit, with the same level of sophistication of the best Agatha Christie mystery. We are led down certain alleys–in fact, the clues point to one particular man so blatantly at first I knew it couldn’t be him–but the result was a surprise to me, so if you haven’t read the book or seen the miniseries, don’t let anyone dare spoil it for you.

But, my goodness, this film is dense. At least 10 percent of it went by me in a blur. I’ll take the blame for much of that, but there are some things I’m left wondering about. I’ll bring up a few, without spoilers: one character, after changing identities, is teaching school (he has a favorite student who looks like a young Roger Ebert). How did Oldman track him down? Also, at a momentous Christmas party, Oldman sees two people in a romantic embrace. Who were they? I have my suspicions, but I don’t believe this was revealed.

Alfredson’s direction is crisp and efficient (along with his editor, Dino Jonsäter), while the script by Peter Straughan and the late Bridget O’Connor works wonders with what must have been an insane assignment. The cast is full of familiar British actors: Toby Jones, Ciaran Hinds and Colin Firth are three of the suspected moles, while Benedict Cumberbatch (what a great British name) and Tom Hardy are both terrific as part of team Oldman. I was surprised not to see Michael Fassbender, and then I read he was going to be in it but I had to drop out because of a conflict, and was replaced by Hardy. As for Oldman, it’s hard to believe this is the same actor who became well known for playing Sid Vicious. He’s so good as a wizened veteran of the intelligence wars that I completely forgot who I was watching. He has several great scenes–I think the best is when he tells about his one meeting with “Karla,” the Russian master spy. It seems that Karla absconded with Oldman’s lighter, which of course will be seen before the film is over.

I highly recommend Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, but I also recommend seeing it a second time. I will certainly do so, when it’s on DVD, so I can watch with subtitles and a pause and rewind button.

My grade for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy: A-.

Opening in Chicago, 01/06

The Conquest (trailer)
Director: Xavier Durringer
Personal Interest Factor: 5
French film that the poster blurb describes as “a vivid re-imagining of … Nicolas Sarkozy’s rise to power and the simultaneous unraveling of his marriage.” Dear god, that sounds awful.
Metacritic: 62

In the Land of Blood and Honey (trailer)
Director: Angelina Jolie
Personal Interest Factor: 6
I’ll probably see this, but the mediocre reviews have made it a low priority. Jolie directs a movie about the Bosnian War, which seems incongruous even when keeping Jolie’s record of humanitarian work in mind. I know I’ve seen the trailer at least once or twice but I don’t remember anything from it, and at any rate a movie from an American filmmaker told from a Bosnian perspective seems like a problematic enterprise. I dunno.
Metacritic: 55

Pariah (trailer)
Director: Dee Rees
Personal Interest Factor: 8
I’ve seen the trailer for this too many times to count, and I’m fairly impressed. I’m particularly intrigued that the poetry recited and presumably written by the film’s protagonist is actually pretty good and evocative.
Metacritic: 77

Outrage (trailer)
Director: Takeshi Kitano (Kikujiro, Brother, Dolls, The Blind Swordsman: Zatoichi)
Personal Interest Factor: 5
I don’t really have much to say about this. It’s really not my kind of thing and I don’t see any reason to think that this is exceptional enough to go out of my way to see.
Metacritic: 67

Also this week:
The Devil Inside (trailer) – aka Yet Another Exorcism Movie
The First Rasta – Rastafarian doc
Inni (trailer) – Sigur Rós concert film

 

Final Standings:

James: 16.5
Jeanine: 13
Nick: 9.5
Jackrabbit Slim: 9.5
Juan: 7.5
Filmman: 7
Rob: 3
Joe: 2.5
Marco: 2

Congratulations, James, who didn’t even play every week! The command center is humming!

Thanks to all who played. AGEBOC ’12 is only four months away!

My favorite movie, for about thirty plus years now, has been Annie Hall. For the record, these are my ten favorite movies, in alphabetical order: Annie Hall, Casablanca, A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, The Godfather, The Graduate, Hannah and Her Sisters, A Hard Day’s Night, The Maltese Falcon, and Manhattan. I would not argue that these are the greatest films ever made (although I would certainly submit that Casablanca and The Godfather are right there), nor would I disagree that Annie Hall is not Woody Allen’s greatest achievement, as Hannah and Her Sisters or Crimes and Misdemeanors are much more emotionally complex. But it is my favorite movie of his, and since Woody Allen is my own personal movie god, it is my favorite film of all time.

To my recollection, the first Allen film I saw was a double feature of Take the Money and Run and The Front (which he starred in but did not write or direct). The former is perhaps his purest comedy, a gag machine that just doesn’t quit, and the movie that most people are referring to when they talk about his “early funny movies” (that and maybe Sleeper or Bananas). My indoctrination into the cult of Allen came through his prose. When I was about 15 I was browsing one day in my local bookstore (the Little Professor on Michigan Avenue in Dearborn, Michigan) and was attracted to the bright yellow cover of Without Feathers, his collection of “casuals” published in the New Yorker. I was hooked. His surreal humor so synced with my own that I treated that book like a Bible. I still have it, though it his held together with masking tape.

All during high school I copied his style in my creative writing, and became known as being such an Allen fan than I was tapped by the high school drama club to direct his play Don’t Drink the Water and thus I was on my way as a theater geek. But it was Annie Hall that pushed me into the status of cinema geek.

Ironically, I didn’t see Annie Hall in its initial theater run. I didn’t go to too many movies in those days without my parents. The movie came out in March, 1977, just after we had moved to New Jersey from Michigan. Thus I didn’t see it until it premiered on HBO in March, 1978. After the first time I watched it, I was transfixed. I watched it every time it was on HBO–perhaps a dozen times that month. I have seen it at least twenty times since then, most recently last night. I have seen it on a big screen a few times, once or twice in college, and once at a theater in Greenwich Village that ran a double feature with Manhattan, surely the most blissful three hours I could possibly spend in a movie theater. In those days before VCRs, I even set up my cassette recorder in front of the TV set and audio taped the movie, so I could listen to it every time I wanted.

So what is that I respond to so much about the movie? Well, it’s amazingly fucking funny. Almost every line is a laugh line, opening and closing with old Catskills jokes. There are also moments of sublime surrealism in some of his jokes. I think the best sequence starts with Alvy Singer’s (Allen, of course) date with Rolling Stone reporter Shelley Duvall. She asks him if he caught the Dylan concert. He responds, “I couldn’t make it that night. My raccoon had hepatitis.” The joke is then pushed when Duvall asks, “You have a raccoon?” and Allen wiggles his fingers and says, “A few.” Then, cut to them in bed, and Duvall tells him as a lover he is “Kafkaesque.” She also apologizes for taking so long to finish. He replies, “I think too much of a burden is placed on the orgasm.” She thinks he’s quoting someone, and asks, “Who said that?” He says, “I think it was Leopold and Loeb.”

He’s then called away to Annie (Diane Keaton), from whom he is separated. She is having a crisis because there is a spider in her bathroom. He finds a copy of National Review and asks, annoyed, why she didn’t get William F. Buckley to kill the spider. Then, finding black soap on her sink, wonders if she’s joining a minstrel show.

In addition to the unrelenting humor, Annie Hall marks Allen’s maturation as a fillmaker. Much of the credit goes to editor Ralph Rosenblum and cinematographer Gordon Willis, who would enjoy a long collaboration with Allen. To start with, the film is told non-linearly, bouncing from Alvy’s Brooklyn boyhood, growing up underneath the Coney Island roller coaster, to his early days as a comedian, through his first two marriages, to the complete A to Z relationship with Annie. The film also has some extremely long takes–the average length of a take in the film is 14.5 seconds, compared to the average 4.5 seconds. With that knowledge, I watched the movie last night with an eye out for that. Consider the first narrative scene, with Alvy and his friend Rob (Tony Roberts), walking down the street. They start in extreme long shot, almost invisible to the eye, but slowly walk forward, as Alvy lists subtle acts of anti-Semitism he’s experienced, until they are in full frame.

Then there’s the scene in which Alvy’s obsession with the Kennedy assassination interferes with his sex life with first wife Carol Kane. I had never noticed before, but that scene, perhaps two minutes long, is in one long take, and ends with the camera zooming in on Alvy, who talks to the audience.

Allen frequently breaks the fourth wall in the film–he starts and ends the film by doing it, and even does it during the context of actual scenes, such as when he turns to the audience and asks them to clear up a disagreement with Annie. This brings the viewer into a more intimate mode with the character. There are also other unusual aspects of the film. In a scene in a movie line, an annoying man claims he knows all about Marshall McLuhan, so Allen produces McLuhan himself from behind a poster to refute him. Allen uses split screen, animation, subtitles to reflect what characters are thinking, and a technique used by Ingmar Bergman in Wild Strawberries by having characters visit themselves in past situations. I think the best use of this is when Allen recalls his penchant for kissing girls in first grade, despite a little girl’s declaration that even Freud spoke of a latency period. Allen represents himself in two ways–himself as a young boy, and himself as adult, seated at his old school desk. The scene ends brilliantly with Allen wondering what his old schoolmates are doing today, and the child actors stand and recite: “I used to be a heroin addict, now I’m a methodone addict,” or “I’m into leather.”

Above all Annie Hall is a romance, and one that belongs to Diane Keaton. Although Allen and Keaton were previously an item, this is not autobiography, though Keaton’s real last name is Hall (and she did have a Jew-hating Grammy Hall). Keaton has repeatedly said that she never uttered the phrase “la-de-da” until Allen wrote it for her. The film was originally called Anhedonia, a psychological condition that prevents the sufferer from experiencing pleasure, but the choice of calling it after Keaton’s character indicates how strongly she carries the picture. She is a fully-developed character, not an idealized version of a girlfriend, and its her endearing awkwardness that grows into self-confidence, while Alvy Singer does not grow, that is the spine of the film. Allen’s decision to just train the camera on her and let her sing “Seems Like Old Times” is something of a tribute to her as an actress. Of course, she won the Academy Award for Best Actress (the film won Best Picture, Allen won Best Director, and he and co-writer Marshall Brickman won for Best Original Screenplay).

I’ve held this picture in high esteem for so long it feels like a part of me. On one of my first trips to New York City while I was in college I made a pilgrimage to the site of the last shot, which happens to be on Columbus Avenue and 63rd Street, across from Lincoln Center (at the time a restaurant called O’Neal’s Balloon was there; that’s where Alvy and Annie have their last goodbye). I can tell you about the soon-to-be-famous actors who were in the movie, such as Christopher Walken as Annie’s weird brother, Jeff Goldblum as an L.A. guy who has forgotten his mantra, and, very briefly, Sigourney Weaver as Alvy’s date when he runs into Annie and her date, going to see The Sorrow and the Pity. I’ve also, as I’ve become more educated, understood more of the jokes–it took me a while to figure out what Alvy’s second wife meant when she said she had a headache “Like Oswald in Ghosts“–that required understanding the plays of Henrik Ibsen.

Though Annie Hall isn’t as visually stunning as Manhattan or Hannah and Her Sisters, it has its moments, especially a scene at twilight, with the Brooklyn Bridge in the background, when Alvy and Annie first declare their love for each other. Allen says that love isn’t a strong enough word: “I lurve you, I loave you, I luff you.” I feel the same about this movie.

Happy new year, everyone. May all of us have a better 2012 than John Cusack did.

Here is my fifth annual look at the films of 50 years ago, highlighting those that were nominated for the Best Picture Oscar.  Longer reviews are available on my blog, Go-Go-Rama.

1961 was the year John F. Kennedy implored us to “ask what we could do for our country,” Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space, Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth’s single-season home run record, and, most importantly, a blogger calling himself by the absurd name of Jackrabbit Slim was born.

At the movies, family films were king: One Hundred and One Dalmatians was the highest grossing film, and the top ten was full of other innocuous fare like The Parent Trap, Blue Hawaii, and Lover Come Back. But, somewhat unbelievably, Fellini’s La Dolce Vita was sixth that year.

The nominees for Best Picture were:

Fanny directed by Joshua Logan, is one those pictures that nobody makes any more, and for good reason. It was based on a Broadway musical, but had all the songs removed. Leslie Caron plays the title role, a girl who gets knocked up by a young man who heads off to sea not knowing her condition, so she marries a rich old goat (Maurice Chevalier), who accepts the child as his own. I was bored cross-eyed by this, and can only conclude that the Francophilia that somehow launched Gigi to the Best Picture Oscar three years older was still at work in the Academy.

The Guns of Navarone is a classic example of the “mission”  picture–story fuel for boys everywhere to use in playing with their G.I. Joes and army men. Directed by J. Lee Thompson, Gregory Peck, David Niven, and Anthony Quinn headed a team of saboteurs set on taking out huge guns on an island in the Aegean that blocked Allied naval traffic. It’s big and epic and a lot of fun, though the special effects, which won an Oscar, look cheesy by today’s standards.  If this movie were made today it would probably be a Michael Bay extravaganza that wouldn’t have nearly the heart of the movie that was made 50 years ago.


The Hustler, directed by Robert Rossen, is the one film of the quintet that, like the Sesame Street song, “doesn’t belong.” A seedy look into the demimonde of poolrooms, it starred Paul Newman as Fast Eddie Felson, a pool hustler who is at odds with his own soul. Much of the film is an unqualified downer, as Newsman enters a relationship with an alcoholic, Piper Laurie, and the man who becomes his manager, George C. Scott, is one of the more venally evil characters that have been on film. Jackie Gleason is memorable as Minnesota Fats, Newman’s arch rival.

Judgment at Nuremberg is the annual Stanley Kramer socially-conscious picture that were regularities of the time period. This one concerns one of the many trials of Nazis held in Nuremberg in the post-war period, but instead of focusing on the big one, which featured Nazi leaders like Goering, writer Abby Mann centered on a trial of four judges that oversaw sending innocent people to concentration camps or undergoing involuntary sterilization. Mann deservedly won an Oscar for his script, which is heavy on talk but brilliantly so, with big speeches by most of the cast, which included big stars like Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, Richard Widmark, Montgomery Clift, Marlene Dietrich and Judy Garland. An unknown actor, Maximilian Schell, won Best Actor in his role as the defense attorney. A long (three hours) movie, it’s none the less gripping.

The winner in 1961 of Best Picture, and overall of 10 Oscars out of 11 nominations, was West Side Story, based on the musical which in turn was based on Romeo and Juliet. The film, viewed with 50 years of hindsight, is great for unusual reasons–it still remains one of the greatest examples of dance ever filmed. Sure, some of it is dated–the gang members wouldn’t scare anyone, and language like “daddy-o” makes it all seem quaint–but the musical numbers are still staggering in their beauty. Leonard Bernstein’s score is the greatest ever to be written for the American stage, and Jerome Robbins’ choreography is still thrilling to behold. When I was a kid my parents had the soundtrack album, and I listened to over and over again, and if I had that record today I could listen to it now. George Chakiris and Rita Moreno won the Best Supporting Actor and Actress awards for their performances in the film.

If I were a voter back then, I would have been tempted to vote for The Hustler, but ultimately would have probably gone along with the crowd and voted for West Side Story, if only for its innovation and sheer emotional power.

Opening in Chicago, 12/30

Happy New Year, folks.

As far as I can tell, there’s nothing actually opening in Chicago this week, which is more or less par for the course for the last weekend of the year. I did notice that The Darkest Hour (trailer) is playing here now, but I’m pretty sure that opened last weekend and I just missed it then. Other than that, nothing to report – even Facets is holding over the same movie for another week, and they almost never do that.

Anyway, still lots of movies for me to catch up on, including most of what opened last week. Have a good weekend, everyone.

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.