From: Eric Baker
To: Adam Kempenaar, Sam Hallgren
Subject: From Middle Earth to the Middle Country and back again
[Editor's note: Eric has returned from delivering U.S. military secrets to China to kick off our Movie Club discussion of the best films of the year -- not his list, but a few comments to get us started. My thanks to him because, as usual, I am way behind on getting my first post up. Sam and I will definitely have something posted after lunch -- probably 10 down to 8. Also note that I think his chronology is out of whack in his final point re: Robin Williams' acting. But I don't have time to check and you get the idea. Stay tuned...]
I fully expected to be lambasted upon my return from China for my last comments about 'The Two Towers,' but it appears people didn't really disagree, or more likely, had more important things to do on their holiday. So I've spent the last few days attempting to read and digest weeks of CinemaScoped posts as well as Movie Club comments. Now I only have to dive into the flood waters of Oscar contenders that Hollywood waits to put out until the last possible moment. So far I've made it to 'Catch Me If You Can' and 'Chicago,' though deciding on the latter was a toss-up with 'Nicholas Nickleby' since both screen in Des Moines but not Iowa City. This quip by Jon Popick of Planet Sick-Boy helped sway me: "This Nickleby thing might have more homosexual undertones than an Eddie Murphy film. And just when you think it can't get any more gay, in pops Nathan Lane."
'Chicago' was fine; I enjoy a musical as much as anyone, and it was capably directed, but instead of Baz Luhrmann's eye-popping extravagance, director and choreographer Rob Marshall deigned it more appropriate to stick closely to Fosse's interpretation and merely filmed a lighted stage. Nothing wrong with that, it was a choice based on Marshall's experience I'm guessing, but it didn't have that razzle-dazzle that the lyrics themselves purport. It has been endlessly pointed out that the actors are neither professional dancers nor singers, but I didn't find any of them to be annoying. Zeta-Jones throatiness, in particular, I found intoxicating, and Gere is quite nice, but the level of dancing did appear to be gained from a mere few weeks of pre-production. On a tangent, Adam has mentioned that he thinks Gere is the breakout star of 'Chicago,' and while carrying a film with an admirable supporting cast is one thing, even getting someone to pay admission to a movie that person knows will be execrable is quite another. That's right: I'm talking about a preview I saw for 'Old School,' the Luke Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Will Ferrell vehicle about 30-somethings who open a frat house. It will suck, guaranteed; yet I chuckle at everything Ferrell does. For whatever reason, I thought it looked much better than 'The Recruit,' 'The Hours,' even '25th Hour.' But then I'm the guy who thinks 'A Night at the Roxbury' should be on the Top 10 film list of the last 25 years, so I guess that little revelation isn't going to make anyone crap their pants. Back to 'Chicago' -- I'm a pretty big fan of John C. Reilly, and I really liked his Cellophane Man routine. 'Movie Club' points out how his roles are becoming increasingly homogenous, and I think they even slip in the word cuckold. I notice Sam is complaining about Catherine Keener's tendency to take what seems like the same character or at least play her the same way every time out. And earlier this year I was fussing because a guy I had earmarked for certain Hollywood stardom, Jake Gyllenhall, had proceeded to play the same character in every movie since his breakout role in 'Donnie Darko.' It begs the question: Are these guys getting pigeonholed by agents or directors, or are they merely one-trick ponies finally exposed for what they really are? Reilly, in particular, has enough clout that he could branch out if he wanted.
I haven't had much time to think about it, but I see that Adam is requiring at least part of a top 10 list today, so I'm guessing Chicago might not make the cut. The problem is that I've seen so few films compared to published critics, especially foreign ones, I always feel a little sheepish about revealing a list. I plan to see two more today ('Gangs of NY' and 'About Schmidt'), so maybe they can round out my meager list. 'Catch Me If You Can,' the delightful Spielberg throwback to the 60s, will probably make my list. I think I liked it so much because it seemed like the anti-Spielberg film: no special effects to speak of, no anti-Semites, and no-unwieldy ending. Just straight expository storytelling of a fascinating check-kiter with a great score by Steve-o's meal ticket, John Williams. Reminiscent of 'Ocean's Eleven.' I'm still not a huge DiCaprio fan, but there's nothing disturbing about him either. Maybe that's my problem. Solid all around.
There seems to be a consensus among the critics at the Movie Club that the sole purpose of their top 10 list is to encourage people to see movies they might not otherwise view, and I suppose if any sizable number of people read this blog, that could be a subject of debate here too. But as it stands, I think we'll probably have to settle for recognizing those films we thought were best, because at least in my case, I haven't seen enough to start recommending art house forget-me-nots. Besides perhaps Jonathan Rosenbaum, no critic consistently attempts to include foreign films in their top 10 lists like Dave Kehr. He is one of four movie critics for The New York Times, and it's uncanny how the foreign films on his top 10 lists always end up screening at the Bijou, the University of Iowa's student-run theater. Other critics have included Time Out (Edelstein) or 'I'm Going Home' (Kerr), but it's almost like the Bijou has a direct line to Kehr's office. Adam B. Kempenaar and Sam, you guys live in that hub of culture, Chicago, so it will be interesting to see what foreign films crept into your canon.
Finally, Sam has commented that 'Lovely & Amazing' is the worst film of the year, and furthermore that Nicole Holofcener has her head up her ass. I have to admit I didn't hate the film, but I had some of the same problems Sam did. I think I just didn't find them as galling. For sure, pyschological evaluation can sometimes be funny in a show, such as 'Daria,' but you won't get far with it in a film. And her films don't really resolve anything -- usually the endings seem ill-conceived ways to finish something what didn't really have a beginning or middle anyhow. I still liked both of them, though, mainly because they felt real, especially when the characters were alone. I think Holofcener sometimes makes her dialogue grating, a la Chekhov, to draw the audience closer to the protagonist. At any rate, Sam is right that neither is a masterpiece.
Just something to throw out there: Sam seems sated when a movie has characters who are nuanced, have subtext, and are naturalistic. To what extent is this good writing or is it really good acting? Is Robin Williams really getting better, than worse, than better again in a one-year period when he does 'One Hour Photo' followed by 'Death to Smoochy' followed by 'Insomnia?'
No comments:
Post a Comment