From: Sam
To: Adam and Eric (and readers)
Subject: City of God, Oceans 11 and Adaptation re-examined
As an unredeemed movie geek who currently has Godard’s “Breathless” waiting at home in a Netflix envelope, I still have trouble going out of my way to see foreign films and documentaries in the theatre. Continued exposure to films like the recently released “City of God” should help cure me of that. If not the very best film I’ve seen in the (extended) 2002 movie season, it is certainly one of the most successfully ambitious. Ambitious in its huge, sprawling canvas; its huge cast; and its stylish visuals, the film succeeds on every level. And more importantly, it never lets details get lost under the sheer weight of the story (which covers 15+ years and introduces 30 or so characters). In a nut shell, the film tells the incredible true story of a boy coming of age in a Brazilian ghetto. Rife with violence, drugs and gang-warfare, the eponymous City of God is a South American urban nightmare. The directors take an unflinching portrait of the place, which makes for some exceedingly unpleasant scenes; but the film is also hugely entertaining. Apparently the cast is made up largely of non-actors, residents of the actual City of God, but for the most part you’d never know it. The lead actors who emerge in the latter parts of the film are wonderfully subtle and charismatic. If the film has any flaw, it’s that it is occasionally too flashy (the co-directors come from a music video/advertising background, and it shows), but this is far outweighed by the detail they bring to even the most secondary characters. See it if you can. Or write it down and rent it when it’s released on DVD.
On other notes: I’ve been bad. Still haven’t seen “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind.” Adam’s thoughts mirror my expectations. We’ll see. I think I’m comfortably pessimistic, which could result in a pleasant surprise when I finally do see it (definitely this weekend). Something else that Adam raised: films that disappointed in the theater that, under re-examination, turned into favorites. Adam chose one of my best examples: “Oceans 11.” My expectations were through the roof when I saw it in the theatre, and I found it superficial and jokey. Eight months later I saw it on an airplane and found myself laughing out loud. The following week I bough it on DVD and I’ve seen it since (at least in parts) a couple more times. It gets better every time I see it. It’s loose and fun and has a great supporting cast. (I could definitely do without Brad Pitt, but he’s a minor distraction). I completely agree with Adam on this one. It’s hard to think of another film that fits this criteria—mostly because if I didn’t like it in the theater I’m not going to go out of my way to see it on DVD—but there are several films that I liked enough in the theatre to see again and, upon seeing them again (and in some cases, again and again and again) became even better (“Get Shorty” gets better every time I see it—you’ve got to see it again for Gene Hackman’s performance alone; and I didn’t love “Rushmore” until I saw it for the third time).
I finally saw “Unfaithful.” A strange, masochistic experience with a weak opening 20 minutes and a brilliant second act (OK, the second half of the second act is brilliant—assuming there are three acts). Diane Lane is good, but she couldn’t possibly live up to the expectations that had been set—critics have been calling her performance Oscar-worthy since July. Too much of her performance seems edited together into wrought-with-emotion montage scenes. Also: Adrian Lyne is one of the best DVD commentary directors out there. A stylish director who pays attention to the little things, he’s very good at describing why he made certain directorial and editing decisions.
One more thing for theatre-lovers. I saw “Moon Over Broadway” last night on DVD and it is essential viewing for anyone who has spent time working in the theatre. It’s a documentary (by documentarian extraordinaire D.A. Pennebaker) about the Broadway mounting of “Moon Over Buffalo” starring Carol Burnette (who hadn’t been on Broadway in 30 years) and Philip Bosco. The expert editing of last minute script changes, the play’s prick of a director, and a neurotic playwright keep this thing interesting every single minute of the way. As a bonus, the DVD offers a commentary track which essentially acts as a sequel to the film as participants look back on the documentary five or six years later. Lots of entertainingly uncomfortable moments.
So. Two of the most entertaining movies I have seen recently? A foreign film and a documentary. Lesson learned.
Oh, and one more thing: I saw “Adaptation” for the second time last week, and I loved it. The ending made sense to me. I don’t have the time or the brains to explain it; I just think the film needs to be seen twice to be appreciated. Once you know the ending, especially if it’s fresh in your head from your first viewing, you can see the logic to it. I’d love to have this discussion with someone. Because all I’ve been doing is getting into fights with people who have only seen it once. I feel like I just found God and all my companions are non-believers, using the same non-believer language I used myself before seeing the film again. Or something like that. I’m just glad that my decision to put the film in my number 2 slot for best of the year is justified. Adam? Eric? Any chance you’ll see it again?
No comments:
Post a Comment