Wednesday, January 22, 2003
RAIN DELAY - No posts will be up until later this afternoon. Hopefully Eric will finish his top ten list -- as promised yesterday! (he should have learned from my past transgressions) -- and Sam might chime in with some comments about our lists. I'll be at another special screening tonight of the film 'Max,' with Noah Taylor ('Shine') as an aspiring art student named Adolf Hitler and John Cusack as his mentor. I'd love to hear from some readers with their top ten movies of the year. I'll post responses here. Send them to the email below.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
MOVIE CLUB - BEST FILMS OF 2002 (9)
From: Eric Baker
To: Sam Hallgren, Adam Kempenaar
Subject: Is a Solondz a Payne by any other name?
Sam, Adam, and even Ndugu, riddle me this: How is Alexander Payne's accurately hewn depiction of Midwestern life any less condescending than Todd Solondz's vision of suburbia? Is it because he uses lilting chamber music to anesthetize his audience and humorous voice-overs? Payne's new film, 'About Schmidt,' which made Sam's top 10 list along with several critics, is a fine film with the great Jack Nicholson and a legitimately superb supporting role by Kathy Bates. But at the same time, Solondz's 'Storytelling,' which made A.O. Scott's top 10 list but no other critic's that I know of, got short shrift both in the Movie Club on Slate and here on CinemaScoped. I don't have a huge problem with this -- it's not his best movie, plus there are plenty of other great movies this year to choose from. But when Adam and other critics poo-poo Solondz for demeaning his audience, I just don't see why they have a different reaction to Payne ('Election' and 'Citizen Ruth' use the same techniques as 'About Schmidt.') Solondz deals with a lot more taboo subjects than Payne (pre-teen rape), but his willingness to delve into uncomfortable subjects makes him immeasurably funnier in my book. Especially when over-earnest directors like Payne go on record in interviews saying things like ,"I hope we can all learn something important from this film. That's why I made it." (paraphrasing, of course, but what a douche bag.) Rant over.
I was hoping there would be some difference to our lists, because I still haven't seen some of the movies on your lists, but our readers may be disappointed.
7. Karmen Gei (Joseph Gai Ramaka) - If 'The New York Times,' that gray old rag, can do it, so can I. This movie officially came out in 2001, but I'm guessing most people still haven't seen it and it's a fluke it came to Iowa City anyway (thanks to the Bijou) so I'm ranking it in the year I viewed it. Based extremely loosely on the musical 'Carmen,' this Senegalese drama is more about color, dancing, and desire. Djeinaba Diop Gai is incendiary as Karmen Gei, and it's impossible for the story to lag when it's only 86 minutes. Look for it at a specialty video store near you.
6. Bowling for Columbine (Michael Moore) - I loved this film even though it is a tad preachy. I think we've gone over this one ad nauseum in this forum, but just like the final half-hour of 'The Natural' (which was on Bravo again last night), I got choked up when they played the 911 calls over the security camera footage from the attacks. Powerful, thought-provoking film even if it doesn't provide any "big answers."
5. Y Tu Mama Tambien (Alfonso Cuaron) - Some of the comments by Sarah Kerr in Slate's Movie Club made me think twice about the realism of the plot in this one, but I remember when I saw it in the theater, all those concerns melted away. I liked it for too many reasons to enumerate, but as Adam has mentioned, the somber voiceover provides the perfect counter-balance to the playfulness of the film. Maybe the best use of one since 'Double Indemnity.'
Final Four later in the day, I promise. Plus, Eric gets dressed down by his readers.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Eric Baker
To: Sam Hallgren, Adam Kempenaar
Subject: Is a Solondz a Payne by any other name?
Sam, Adam, and even Ndugu, riddle me this: How is Alexander Payne's accurately hewn depiction of Midwestern life any less condescending than Todd Solondz's vision of suburbia? Is it because he uses lilting chamber music to anesthetize his audience and humorous voice-overs? Payne's new film, 'About Schmidt,' which made Sam's top 10 list along with several critics, is a fine film with the great Jack Nicholson and a legitimately superb supporting role by Kathy Bates. But at the same time, Solondz's 'Storytelling,' which made A.O. Scott's top 10 list but no other critic's that I know of, got short shrift both in the Movie Club on Slate and here on CinemaScoped. I don't have a huge problem with this -- it's not his best movie, plus there are plenty of other great movies this year to choose from. But when Adam and other critics poo-poo Solondz for demeaning his audience, I just don't see why they have a different reaction to Payne ('Election' and 'Citizen Ruth' use the same techniques as 'About Schmidt.') Solondz deals with a lot more taboo subjects than Payne (pre-teen rape), but his willingness to delve into uncomfortable subjects makes him immeasurably funnier in my book. Especially when over-earnest directors like Payne go on record in interviews saying things like ,"I hope we can all learn something important from this film. That's why I made it." (paraphrasing, of course, but what a douche bag.) Rant over.
I was hoping there would be some difference to our lists, because I still haven't seen some of the movies on your lists, but our readers may be disappointed.
7. Karmen Gei (Joseph Gai Ramaka) - If 'The New York Times,' that gray old rag, can do it, so can I. This movie officially came out in 2001, but I'm guessing most people still haven't seen it and it's a fluke it came to Iowa City anyway (thanks to the Bijou) so I'm ranking it in the year I viewed it. Based extremely loosely on the musical 'Carmen,' this Senegalese drama is more about color, dancing, and desire. Djeinaba Diop Gai is incendiary as Karmen Gei, and it's impossible for the story to lag when it's only 86 minutes. Look for it at a specialty video store near you.
6. Bowling for Columbine (Michael Moore) - I loved this film even though it is a tad preachy. I think we've gone over this one ad nauseum in this forum, but just like the final half-hour of 'The Natural' (which was on Bravo again last night), I got choked up when they played the 911 calls over the security camera footage from the attacks. Powerful, thought-provoking film even if it doesn't provide any "big answers."
5. Y Tu Mama Tambien (Alfonso Cuaron) - Some of the comments by Sarah Kerr in Slate's Movie Club made me think twice about the realism of the plot in this one, but I remember when I saw it in the theater, all those concerns melted away. I liked it for too many reasons to enumerate, but as Adam has mentioned, the somber voiceover provides the perfect counter-balance to the playfulness of the film. Maybe the best use of one since 'Double Indemnity.'
Final Four later in the day, I promise. Plus, Eric gets dressed down by his readers.
Monday, January 20, 2003
MOVIE CLUB - BEST FILMS OF 2002 (8)
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren, Eric Baker
Subject: Adam and Sam's taste test
There's so much I wanted to discuss today -- the Golden Globes, my reaction to Roman Polanski's 'The Pianist,' which I finally saw last night and walked out devastated in the best way possible, and David Edelstein's suggestion during the Slate Movie Club that film critics have wildly divergent tastes. Unfortunately, time isn't on my side and I need to end the drama surrounding my top ten films of the year, in addition to handing out some awards. My reasons for wanting to comment on the issue of film critics and taste should be obvious to anyone who compares my best-of list to your's, Sam.
4. Roger Dodger (Dylan Kidd) - In the current issue of Film Comment there's a feature called "When Interns Attack" where the high-brow mag's unpaid interns get to rip on their least favorite movies of the year. About 'Roger Dodger,' they quip: "Mr. DP, is that an earthquake in your pocket or are you just really excited to see me?" I love this line because it's funny, but also because I, too, was initially turned off by Kidd's blatant indie-ness -- shaky, hand-held camera with countless closeups, opening lunch scene with neurotic New Yorkers spouting pseudo-intellectual babble. By the end of this opening scene, however, I was laughing hysterically at the title character's bluntness, his ability to talk without censoring himself in any way. The dialogue throughout is some of the sharpest and funniest of the year, but what elevates the movie is the complexity of Campbell Scott's character and performance. Roger is absolutely enigmatic, a selfish, immature, confident womanizer who also reveals himself to be a thoughtful, intelligent, insecure romantic.
3. 25th Hour (Spike Lee) - If you thought the Philip Glass score in 'The Hours' was annoying, Terence Blanchard's is at least... well, 25 times worse in '25th Hour.' The first 90 minutes are nearly wall-to-wall music, which is typical for Lee but really annoyed me here because the cast and script -- David Benioff's screenplay (based on his novel) is probably the best Lee has had to work with since his own 'Do The Right Thing' -- are so terrific. There are few things I'd rather watch more than Philip Seymour Hoffman and Barry Pepper talk about anything. And yet, there's Blanchard hammering every crescendo in the conversation as the two discuss the pending imprisonment of their friend Monty (Ed Norton) with the remains of the World Trade Center in the background. OK, so that's what I didn't like. Fortunately, the music stops just in time for one of the best scenes in the film -- a verbal showdown between Pepper and Rosario Dawson, who plays Monty's girlfriend and possible betrayer. Pepper stands out among all of the talented performers. Like Lee's best films, '25th Hour' is essentially an art film, with (mostly) unsympathetic characters and plot machinations that don't resolve, made to look like a Hollywood movie. The ending is a magnificently ambiguous, bravura piece of filmmaking.
2. Catch Me If You Can (Steven Spielberg) - Forget 'Adaptation,' the year's real post-modern triumph is ironically (wink, wink) the most conventional. Frank Abagnale (Leo DiCaprio) is a con man who owes his charmed life as an airline pilot, lawyer, and doctor, to the power of the image. If you can look and act the part -- as seen on television and the movies -- people will accept you as the real thing. Although I've never been a huge Spielberg fan, 'Catch' is a near flawless piece of entertainment. My only quibble would be a scene between DiCaprio and 'Alias' star Jennifer Garner as a high-priced prostitute that is so overplayed it almost grinds the movie to a halt. DiCaprio is better here (read "more believable") than he is in 'Gangs of New York,' displaying a natural charm and confidence that belies an innocent naivete. As we've come to expect, Spielberg spins Abagnale's tale into the search for a father figure in the form of Tom Hanks' by-the-books FBI agent who is always just a step behind. And this time, I fell for it completely. It's one of the most intriguing on-screen relationships since Tilda Swinton and her blackmailer in 'The Deep End.'
1. Punch-Drunk Love (P.T. Anderson) - I'm with you completely, Sam. I'm not sure I can explain exactly why this movie was my favorite film of the year, except that it is the movie I most want to see again. Just as David Lynch does, Anderson has created a film world that always seems skewed, artificial. But then he inhabits this world with characters who display all of the feelings of insecurity and rage and loneliness that we find in everyday life. Watching the two collide is a beautiful trainwreck.
Movies that would be in my top ten had I seen them earlier: Y Tu Mama Tambien, The Pianist
Honorable mention: Signs, Antwone Fisher, Minority Report, The Hours, 13 Conversations About One Thing, All Or Nothing, Chicago, Rabbit-Proof Fence, Spider-Man, Tadpole
Movies I expected to be better: Bowling for Columbine, Lovely & Amazing, The Sunshine State, Adaptation, Storytelling, Igby Goes Down
Could have been worse: Frailty, The Rookie, Changing Lanes, Hart's War
Best ending that never was: Ben Affleck's last line of dialogue in 'Changing Lanes'
Best performances of the year: Daniel Day-Lewis ('Gangs of New York), Barry Pepper ('25th Hour'), Natasha McElhone ('Solaris'), Richard Gere ('Chicago'), Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid ('Far From Heaven'), Campbell Scott ('Roger Dodger'), Hugh Grant ('About a Boy'), Christopher Walken ('Catch Me If You Can'), Adrien Brody ('The Pianist')
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren, Eric Baker
Subject: Adam and Sam's taste test
There's so much I wanted to discuss today -- the Golden Globes, my reaction to Roman Polanski's 'The Pianist,' which I finally saw last night and walked out devastated in the best way possible, and David Edelstein's suggestion during the Slate Movie Club that film critics have wildly divergent tastes. Unfortunately, time isn't on my side and I need to end the drama surrounding my top ten films of the year, in addition to handing out some awards. My reasons for wanting to comment on the issue of film critics and taste should be obvious to anyone who compares my best-of list to your's, Sam.
4. Roger Dodger (Dylan Kidd) - In the current issue of Film Comment there's a feature called "When Interns Attack" where the high-brow mag's unpaid interns get to rip on their least favorite movies of the year. About 'Roger Dodger,' they quip: "Mr. DP, is that an earthquake in your pocket or are you just really excited to see me?" I love this line because it's funny, but also because I, too, was initially turned off by Kidd's blatant indie-ness -- shaky, hand-held camera with countless closeups, opening lunch scene with neurotic New Yorkers spouting pseudo-intellectual babble. By the end of this opening scene, however, I was laughing hysterically at the title character's bluntness, his ability to talk without censoring himself in any way. The dialogue throughout is some of the sharpest and funniest of the year, but what elevates the movie is the complexity of Campbell Scott's character and performance. Roger is absolutely enigmatic, a selfish, immature, confident womanizer who also reveals himself to be a thoughtful, intelligent, insecure romantic.
3. 25th Hour (Spike Lee) - If you thought the Philip Glass score in 'The Hours' was annoying, Terence Blanchard's is at least... well, 25 times worse in '25th Hour.' The first 90 minutes are nearly wall-to-wall music, which is typical for Lee but really annoyed me here because the cast and script -- David Benioff's screenplay (based on his novel) is probably the best Lee has had to work with since his own 'Do The Right Thing' -- are so terrific. There are few things I'd rather watch more than Philip Seymour Hoffman and Barry Pepper talk about anything. And yet, there's Blanchard hammering every crescendo in the conversation as the two discuss the pending imprisonment of their friend Monty (Ed Norton) with the remains of the World Trade Center in the background. OK, so that's what I didn't like. Fortunately, the music stops just in time for one of the best scenes in the film -- a verbal showdown between Pepper and Rosario Dawson, who plays Monty's girlfriend and possible betrayer. Pepper stands out among all of the talented performers. Like Lee's best films, '25th Hour' is essentially an art film, with (mostly) unsympathetic characters and plot machinations that don't resolve, made to look like a Hollywood movie. The ending is a magnificently ambiguous, bravura piece of filmmaking.
2. Catch Me If You Can (Steven Spielberg) - Forget 'Adaptation,' the year's real post-modern triumph is ironically (wink, wink) the most conventional. Frank Abagnale (Leo DiCaprio) is a con man who owes his charmed life as an airline pilot, lawyer, and doctor, to the power of the image. If you can look and act the part -- as seen on television and the movies -- people will accept you as the real thing. Although I've never been a huge Spielberg fan, 'Catch' is a near flawless piece of entertainment. My only quibble would be a scene between DiCaprio and 'Alias' star Jennifer Garner as a high-priced prostitute that is so overplayed it almost grinds the movie to a halt. DiCaprio is better here (read "more believable") than he is in 'Gangs of New York,' displaying a natural charm and confidence that belies an innocent naivete. As we've come to expect, Spielberg spins Abagnale's tale into the search for a father figure in the form of Tom Hanks' by-the-books FBI agent who is always just a step behind. And this time, I fell for it completely. It's one of the most intriguing on-screen relationships since Tilda Swinton and her blackmailer in 'The Deep End.'
1. Punch-Drunk Love (P.T. Anderson) - I'm with you completely, Sam. I'm not sure I can explain exactly why this movie was my favorite film of the year, except that it is the movie I most want to see again. Just as David Lynch does, Anderson has created a film world that always seems skewed, artificial. But then he inhabits this world with characters who display all of the feelings of insecurity and rage and loneliness that we find in everyday life. Watching the two collide is a beautiful trainwreck.
Movies that would be in my top ten had I seen them earlier: Y Tu Mama Tambien, The Pianist
Honorable mention: Signs, Antwone Fisher, Minority Report, The Hours, 13 Conversations About One Thing, All Or Nothing, Chicago, Rabbit-Proof Fence, Spider-Man, Tadpole
Movies I expected to be better: Bowling for Columbine, Lovely & Amazing, The Sunshine State, Adaptation, Storytelling, Igby Goes Down
Could have been worse: Frailty, The Rookie, Changing Lanes, Hart's War
Best ending that never was: Ben Affleck's last line of dialogue in 'Changing Lanes'
Best performances of the year: Daniel Day-Lewis ('Gangs of New York), Barry Pepper ('25th Hour'), Natasha McElhone ('Solaris'), Richard Gere ('Chicago'), Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid ('Far From Heaven'), Campbell Scott ('Roger Dodger'), Hugh Grant ('About a Boy'), Christopher Walken ('Catch Me If You Can'), Adrien Brody ('The Pianist')
MOVIE CLUB: BEST FILMS OF 2002 (7)
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar, Eric Baker
Subject: The final countdown
4. Gangs of New York (Martin Scorsese) - I saw this film on the heels of my heretic comments about Scorsese in this forum a week ago. The first 40 minutes of the film confirmed my opinion of Scorsese as someone who has been too hastily canonized. Then the film completely won me over with its epic theatricality and the huge scope of the storytelling. The film is a mess of over-plotting and misplaced ambition, but what an experience. It is an understatement to say that Daniel Day-Lewis gives the performance of the year. It is one of the most awe-inspiring performances I have ever seen in my life. If you’re going to see it, see it on the big screen. And try not to go in expecting a masterpiece. It’s an event.
3. Roger Dodger (Dylan Kidd) - This film doesn’t even get into theatres without Campbell Scott’s performance as the eponymous lead character. It’s not a bad script; but without the depth and intelligence that Scott brings to the role, the character comes off as inexcusably vile and misogynistic. As it is, it’s one of the best “talking” movies since “Glengarry Glen Ross.” The plot is pretty flimsy, but acts as a great device to get Roger talking; and that’s what makes this movie so great. It’s a film-length character study, and Kidd puts Roger in every conceivable scenario to show off the character’s various dimensions (or lack there of). This movie makes it into my top ten -- and so far into my top ten -- because Scott delivers the most sustained, honest performance I’ve seen all year. Just a pleasure to watch.
2. Adaptation (Spike Jonze) - Adaptation may be self-indulgent and unsatisfying, but it’s not cynical. The movie is searching for something: truth, happiness, normality (to be honest, I don’t know). It manages to take itself very seriously and all the while sustain a great sense of humor about itself. I found it completely original and creative and fun -- and, at the same time, I found it moving and serious and thought-provoking. And it has the best ensemble cast of any movie this year. Jonze and Kaufman have set a standard of creative originality that is unmatched by anyone else working today. I’ll take all this film’s faults for the sheer audacity and good humor of the attempt.
1. Punch-Drunk Love (Paul Thomas Anderson) - To be honest, I’m not sure how this film ended up as my best film of the year. I suppose, like Adaptation, I was won over by its creativity and its commitment to its own eccentricity. I loved being able to abandon any sense of the “real world” (as I know and understand it) and instead accept the reality of Anderson’s film. I wish more films would use this kind of carefree (but disciplined) logic. The movie left me feeling giddy and fulfilled -- like I had eaten some delicious exotic fruit. I know I had some problems with this movie when I saw it, but for the life of me I can’t remember a single one. I can’t wait to see it again.
-Sam
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar, Eric Baker
Subject: The final countdown
4. Gangs of New York (Martin Scorsese) - I saw this film on the heels of my heretic comments about Scorsese in this forum a week ago. The first 40 minutes of the film confirmed my opinion of Scorsese as someone who has been too hastily canonized. Then the film completely won me over with its epic theatricality and the huge scope of the storytelling. The film is a mess of over-plotting and misplaced ambition, but what an experience. It is an understatement to say that Daniel Day-Lewis gives the performance of the year. It is one of the most awe-inspiring performances I have ever seen in my life. If you’re going to see it, see it on the big screen. And try not to go in expecting a masterpiece. It’s an event.
3. Roger Dodger (Dylan Kidd) - This film doesn’t even get into theatres without Campbell Scott’s performance as the eponymous lead character. It’s not a bad script; but without the depth and intelligence that Scott brings to the role, the character comes off as inexcusably vile and misogynistic. As it is, it’s one of the best “talking” movies since “Glengarry Glen Ross.” The plot is pretty flimsy, but acts as a great device to get Roger talking; and that’s what makes this movie so great. It’s a film-length character study, and Kidd puts Roger in every conceivable scenario to show off the character’s various dimensions (or lack there of). This movie makes it into my top ten -- and so far into my top ten -- because Scott delivers the most sustained, honest performance I’ve seen all year. Just a pleasure to watch.
2. Adaptation (Spike Jonze) - Adaptation may be self-indulgent and unsatisfying, but it’s not cynical. The movie is searching for something: truth, happiness, normality (to be honest, I don’t know). It manages to take itself very seriously and all the while sustain a great sense of humor about itself. I found it completely original and creative and fun -- and, at the same time, I found it moving and serious and thought-provoking. And it has the best ensemble cast of any movie this year. Jonze and Kaufman have set a standard of creative originality that is unmatched by anyone else working today. I’ll take all this film’s faults for the sheer audacity and good humor of the attempt.
1. Punch-Drunk Love (Paul Thomas Anderson) - To be honest, I’m not sure how this film ended up as my best film of the year. I suppose, like Adaptation, I was won over by its creativity and its commitment to its own eccentricity. I loved being able to abandon any sense of the “real world” (as I know and understand it) and instead accept the reality of Anderson’s film. I wish more films would use this kind of carefree (but disciplined) logic. The movie left me feeling giddy and fulfilled -- like I had eaten some delicious exotic fruit. I know I had some problems with this movie when I saw it, but for the life of me I can’t remember a single one. I can’t wait to see it again.
-Sam
Friday, January 17, 2003
MOVIE CLUB - BEST FILMS OF 2002 (6)
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren, Eric Baker
Subject: List hell
I'm only three movies in -- 7 through 5 are below -- and I already hate my top ten list. Did I really like '8 Mile' better than 'Gangs of New York' and 'Far From Heaven'? If I was standing in front of the DVD rack right now and could only buy one disc, couldn't I just as easily walk out with 'Heaven' or 'Gangs' before '8 Mile'? It's keeping me up at night. On top of that, when I made my list I still had an hour left of 'Y Tu Mama Tambien,' which I was enjoying immensely. Without seeing the whole thing, however, I couldn't rank it. Well, I finally finished it last night and loved it, so much so that it easily deserves a spot in the top ten. I guess it will have to be my honorable mention. Sam, your praise of the cast is well-deserved. As I discussed in my remarks on 'Rabbit-Proof Fence,' maybe it's because it is a foreign film, but the actors seem so incredibly natural. Watching the two leads I felt almost like I was watching a documentary, as if Julio and Tenoch were actual friends, which is I suppose why the ending left me so stunned. I don't want to give anything away to our readers, although nothing is particularly surprising about the conclusion. In fact, I'm sure you two have had enough experiences with great friends you had as teenagers to know that the ending was probably inevitable. But the movie stands as a brilliant record of the last gasp before the sterileness of adulthood. The use of narration is magnificent because it does exaxctly what a voice-over should do, which is to illuminate, to add something to the film rather than merely fill in information that should be shown to us in the first place.
As you know, Eric, I too have a fondness for the comedic stylings of Will Ferrell -- at least when he was leading the 'Saturday Night Live' cast. My first reaction to the 'Old School' trailer was what you'd expect from a movie snob, something like, "What in the hell are Luke Wilson and Vince Vaughn thinking making trash like this?" And then I saw a longer preview before 'Catch Me If You Can,' and I'll admit it -- at least three or four jokes had me giggling with embarrassment. Although completely the antithesis of Owen Wilson, who is far more subtle a comedian, Ferrell is like Wilson in that they are able to make an unfunny line funny just in the way they deliver it. Come to think of it, Vaughn is exactly the same way. It would truly pain me to pay money for this movie, but I may have to do it. Prediction: the guilty pleasure of the year.
Eric's question about John C. Reilly, Catherine Keener and Jake Gyllenhaal -- "Are these guys getting pigeonholed by agents or directors, or are they merely one-trick ponies finally exposed for what they really are? -- is a good one. I don't really know the answer, though I guess I believe all three are talented enough to tackle other types of characters. Certainly Reilly has proven himself over the years in a variety of roles, and it was nice to see him playing something other than the dimwitted husband in 'Gangs of New York.' Keener and Gyllenhaal, on the other hand, need to branch out. 'Lovely & Amazing' soured me on them both for awhile.
Now back to the list...
7. About a Boy (Chris and Paul Weitz) - I said pretty much everything I wanted to say about this movie in my review, so I'll be brief. I was skeptical about this film because the previews made it seem so sappy, and granted it is pretty sentimental at times. But this is more than made up for by Hugh Grant's quick-witted cynicism. He finally drops his usual bag of tricks -- namely, blinking and stuttering -- and just enjoys playing a cad who cares for himself above everyone else. Like you Sam, I enjoyed Toni Collette as well -- or as I like to call her, the 'female Billy Bob Thornton.' A good book and a good film.
6. Solaris (Steven Soderbergh) - As anyone who remembers our discussion from Dec. 2 knows, I was the only one who really loved this film. Soderbergh's now signature technique of overlapping dialogue with images from past, present and future moments has never been more effective, save for maybe the love scene from 'Out of Sight.' But even then, as in 'The Limey,' it seemed a bit gimmicky rather than in full service of the story. Here the cinematography and editing matches the eerie, perpetually dream-like quality of Chris Kelvin's (George Clooney) predicament.
5. The Bourne Identity (Doug Liman) - Unlike you Sam, who seems to feel a bit guilty about enjoying this summer thriller, I am unashamed about ranking it among my top five. A spy movie that focuses on character over explosions and special effects -- what a concept. Liman's technique is stylish without seeming grandiose, and the penultimate finale -- Bourne's (Matt Damon) hushed, tense confrontation in a field with a spy (the great Clive Owen) who has been assigned to kill him -- is spectacular. I also loved Franke Potente as Bourne's love interest, precisely because she adds a dimension of reality and honesty, as you so nicely put it, Sam -- a dimension usually absent from movies in this genre.
- Adam
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren, Eric Baker
Subject: List hell
I'm only three movies in -- 7 through 5 are below -- and I already hate my top ten list. Did I really like '8 Mile' better than 'Gangs of New York' and 'Far From Heaven'? If I was standing in front of the DVD rack right now and could only buy one disc, couldn't I just as easily walk out with 'Heaven' or 'Gangs' before '8 Mile'? It's keeping me up at night. On top of that, when I made my list I still had an hour left of 'Y Tu Mama Tambien,' which I was enjoying immensely. Without seeing the whole thing, however, I couldn't rank it. Well, I finally finished it last night and loved it, so much so that it easily deserves a spot in the top ten. I guess it will have to be my honorable mention. Sam, your praise of the cast is well-deserved. As I discussed in my remarks on 'Rabbit-Proof Fence,' maybe it's because it is a foreign film, but the actors seem so incredibly natural. Watching the two leads I felt almost like I was watching a documentary, as if Julio and Tenoch were actual friends, which is I suppose why the ending left me so stunned. I don't want to give anything away to our readers, although nothing is particularly surprising about the conclusion. In fact, I'm sure you two have had enough experiences with great friends you had as teenagers to know that the ending was probably inevitable. But the movie stands as a brilliant record of the last gasp before the sterileness of adulthood. The use of narration is magnificent because it does exaxctly what a voice-over should do, which is to illuminate, to add something to the film rather than merely fill in information that should be shown to us in the first place.
As you know, Eric, I too have a fondness for the comedic stylings of Will Ferrell -- at least when he was leading the 'Saturday Night Live' cast. My first reaction to the 'Old School' trailer was what you'd expect from a movie snob, something like, "What in the hell are Luke Wilson and Vince Vaughn thinking making trash like this?" And then I saw a longer preview before 'Catch Me If You Can,' and I'll admit it -- at least three or four jokes had me giggling with embarrassment. Although completely the antithesis of Owen Wilson, who is far more subtle a comedian, Ferrell is like Wilson in that they are able to make an unfunny line funny just in the way they deliver it. Come to think of it, Vaughn is exactly the same way. It would truly pain me to pay money for this movie, but I may have to do it. Prediction: the guilty pleasure of the year.
Eric's question about John C. Reilly, Catherine Keener and Jake Gyllenhaal -- "Are these guys getting pigeonholed by agents or directors, or are they merely one-trick ponies finally exposed for what they really are? -- is a good one. I don't really know the answer, though I guess I believe all three are talented enough to tackle other types of characters. Certainly Reilly has proven himself over the years in a variety of roles, and it was nice to see him playing something other than the dimwitted husband in 'Gangs of New York.' Keener and Gyllenhaal, on the other hand, need to branch out. 'Lovely & Amazing' soured me on them both for awhile.
Now back to the list...
7. About a Boy (Chris and Paul Weitz) - I said pretty much everything I wanted to say about this movie in my review, so I'll be brief. I was skeptical about this film because the previews made it seem so sappy, and granted it is pretty sentimental at times. But this is more than made up for by Hugh Grant's quick-witted cynicism. He finally drops his usual bag of tricks -- namely, blinking and stuttering -- and just enjoys playing a cad who cares for himself above everyone else. Like you Sam, I enjoyed Toni Collette as well -- or as I like to call her, the 'female Billy Bob Thornton.' A good book and a good film.
6. Solaris (Steven Soderbergh) - As anyone who remembers our discussion from Dec. 2 knows, I was the only one who really loved this film. Soderbergh's now signature technique of overlapping dialogue with images from past, present and future moments has never been more effective, save for maybe the love scene from 'Out of Sight.' But even then, as in 'The Limey,' it seemed a bit gimmicky rather than in full service of the story. Here the cinematography and editing matches the eerie, perpetually dream-like quality of Chris Kelvin's (George Clooney) predicament.
5. The Bourne Identity (Doug Liman) - Unlike you Sam, who seems to feel a bit guilty about enjoying this summer thriller, I am unashamed about ranking it among my top five. A spy movie that focuses on character over explosions and special effects -- what a concept. Liman's technique is stylish without seeming grandiose, and the penultimate finale -- Bourne's (Matt Damon) hushed, tense confrontation in a field with a spy (the great Clive Owen) who has been assigned to kill him -- is spectacular. I also loved Franke Potente as Bourne's love interest, precisely because she adds a dimension of reality and honesty, as you so nicely put it, Sam -- a dimension usually absent from movies in this genre.
- Adam
Thursday, January 16, 2003
MOVIE CLUB: BEST FILMS OF 2002 (5)
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar, Eric Baker
Subject: The countdown continues...
I know that we spent some time several months ago talking about the various methods we used to determine our top ten lists. As Adam writes, the process is arbitrary -- not to mention, like any movie-related experience, completely subjective -- and a little silly; but it does give you a chance to really think about what you like and why. As I compiled my list -- particularly as I got closer to the top of my list -- I started to notice a kind of trend. More often than not, it was a performance, or a set of performances -- and not the movie itself (or the script or the cinematography or the soundtrack) -- that set a movie apart for me. And a great performance combined with a unique directorial vision is more than enough to win me over (as you will see shortly in my top five movies). And speaking of great performances, Eric asks how much a good screenplay has to do with the performance. He could be asking the same thing about a good director or a good editor. I’m sure that some great performances have been created in the editing room. I don’t claim to be an expert on the process of movie-making, or what it takes to bring a screenplay to the screen. I can only judge what I see, and unfairly or not, I lay the burden of the performance -- good or bad -- with the actor.
7. About a Boy (Chris Weitz and Paul Weitz) - I saw this movie last March, and for a while, it was the only 2002 film I had any affection for at all. It’s difficult to recall my exact impression, but I remember really loving the kid (Nicholas Hoult) they got to play Hugh Grant’s “ward.” I don’t know where they found this kid, but he is perfect for the part. Not a Hollywood “weird kid.” An honest-to-god weirdo. The movie succeeds largely due to the fun dynamic between Grant and Hoult. Also good is Toni Collette -- who, to be honest, is incapable of turning in a bad performance. You could pretty much put Toni Collette and Cate Blanchett in every movie and it would be watchable because of them. Anyway. About a Boy. Good times. Funny. Well-written and directed. A little forced at the beginning as I recall.
6. The Bourne Identity (Doug Liman) - Maybe I just didn’t expect anything from this movie, but I loved it. We’ll see how it holds up under re-examination. The movie is helped tremendously by Franke Potente in the love-interest/sidekick role. Her presence adds a dimension of reality and honesty to the film that is impossible to overstate. Matt Damon acquits himself nicely as Bourne. When I saw it this summer, I was so pleasantly surprised at its lack of jokiness, its grainy realism, and its uncluttered plotting. At the end of the day, it’s just a simple summer action movie. But while I was watching it, I managed to forget that.
5. Heaven (Tom Tykwer) - It was 10 pm on a Monday evening in November. I was at an art house theatre in downtown Chicago. I had already sat through a movie (Tully) that had left me unfulfilled and sleepy. I had work the next day, but I decided to sneak into Tom Tykwer's’s “Heaven” with the faint hope that it would revitalize me. It did. After sitting through Tully’s lackadaisical plotting and uninspired direction, Heaven was a powerful antidote. Based on the late (some would say great) Krzysztof Kieslowski’s un-produced script, Tom Tykwer's uses brilliant and beautiful cinematography and applies a technician’s discipline to bring Kieslowski’s heavily philosophical story to life. If the story becomes occasionally burdened with the moral dilemma that lies at the heart of the film, the performances by Cate Blanchett and Giovanni Ribisi more than make up for it. I’m not sure this film should be so high on my list, but it’s effect on me -- with its potent visuals and committed performances -- has lingered with me longer than many other 2002 movies.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar, Eric Baker
Subject: The countdown continues...
I know that we spent some time several months ago talking about the various methods we used to determine our top ten lists. As Adam writes, the process is arbitrary -- not to mention, like any movie-related experience, completely subjective -- and a little silly; but it does give you a chance to really think about what you like and why. As I compiled my list -- particularly as I got closer to the top of my list -- I started to notice a kind of trend. More often than not, it was a performance, or a set of performances -- and not the movie itself (or the script or the cinematography or the soundtrack) -- that set a movie apart for me. And a great performance combined with a unique directorial vision is more than enough to win me over (as you will see shortly in my top five movies). And speaking of great performances, Eric asks how much a good screenplay has to do with the performance. He could be asking the same thing about a good director or a good editor. I’m sure that some great performances have been created in the editing room. I don’t claim to be an expert on the process of movie-making, or what it takes to bring a screenplay to the screen. I can only judge what I see, and unfairly or not, I lay the burden of the performance -- good or bad -- with the actor.
7. About a Boy (Chris Weitz and Paul Weitz) - I saw this movie last March, and for a while, it was the only 2002 film I had any affection for at all. It’s difficult to recall my exact impression, but I remember really loving the kid (Nicholas Hoult) they got to play Hugh Grant’s “ward.” I don’t know where they found this kid, but he is perfect for the part. Not a Hollywood “weird kid.” An honest-to-god weirdo. The movie succeeds largely due to the fun dynamic between Grant and Hoult. Also good is Toni Collette -- who, to be honest, is incapable of turning in a bad performance. You could pretty much put Toni Collette and Cate Blanchett in every movie and it would be watchable because of them. Anyway. About a Boy. Good times. Funny. Well-written and directed. A little forced at the beginning as I recall.
6. The Bourne Identity (Doug Liman) - Maybe I just didn’t expect anything from this movie, but I loved it. We’ll see how it holds up under re-examination. The movie is helped tremendously by Franke Potente in the love-interest/sidekick role. Her presence adds a dimension of reality and honesty to the film that is impossible to overstate. Matt Damon acquits himself nicely as Bourne. When I saw it this summer, I was so pleasantly surprised at its lack of jokiness, its grainy realism, and its uncluttered plotting. At the end of the day, it’s just a simple summer action movie. But while I was watching it, I managed to forget that.
5. Heaven (Tom Tykwer) - It was 10 pm on a Monday evening in November. I was at an art house theatre in downtown Chicago. I had already sat through a movie (Tully) that had left me unfulfilled and sleepy. I had work the next day, but I decided to sneak into Tom Tykwer's’s “Heaven” with the faint hope that it would revitalize me. It did. After sitting through Tully’s lackadaisical plotting and uninspired direction, Heaven was a powerful antidote. Based on the late (some would say great) Krzysztof Kieslowski’s un-produced script, Tom Tykwer's uses brilliant and beautiful cinematography and applies a technician’s discipline to bring Kieslowski’s heavily philosophical story to life. If the story becomes occasionally burdened with the moral dilemma that lies at the heart of the film, the performances by Cate Blanchett and Giovanni Ribisi more than make up for it. I’m not sure this film should be so high on my list, but it’s effect on me -- with its potent visuals and committed performances -- has lingered with me longer than many other 2002 movies.
MOVIE CLUB - BEST FILMS OF 2002 (4)
From: Eric Baker
To: Sam Hallgren, Adam Kempenaar
Subject: A Tribute, and a few fine films of 2002
I just watched a masterpiece. After finally reading "In Cold Blood" over the holidays, Truman Capote's 1965 masterwork recounting the brutal murder of a Kansas farm family and subsequent tracking, trial, and execution of the killers, I had to see the film version which was done two years later by Richard Brooks in the very same Holcomb, Kansas where the crime occurred. Ultimately intended as a statement against the death penalty (maybe Illinois Gov. Ryan read it over the holidays, too) because six people died in cold blood, not just the family farm of four murdered on that cool November night in 1959, Capote's work stands as the standard-bearer for a genre. It established true crime drama as we know it and its popularity legitimized the currency of the literary journalism movement taking shape in the 1960s. Anyone preparing to become a journalist needs to read it, even though Tru (I'm one of his friends, he let me call him that) played fast and loose with the facts on occasion. Ebert gives a much better review of the film than I ever could, and puts a few somewhat current events concerning Robert Blake, the lead actor, in context. So why does any of this matter? Because this film marked a watershed period for a cinematographer in 1967, a guy named Conrad Hall who died on Jan. 4 of this year. I'm surprised Adam didn't comment on this, but the more I see of Hall's films, he strikes me as a guy with a vision. His camerawork and lighting have a trademark almost. 'In Cold Blood' was the third Oscar of many nominations for Hall, and Jeffrey Wells over at Movie Poop Shoot is convinced he will win posthumously this year for 'Road to Perdition.' For all the shortcomings I found in that film, I have to admit the shots were pretty magnificent. His resume is vast and varied, but just his films that received Academy nominations include: Saboteur: Code Name Morituri (1965), The Professionals (1966), In Cold Blood (1967), Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969, for which he won the Oscar), The Day of the Locust (1975), Tequila Sunrise (1988), Searching for Bobby Fischer (1993), and American Beauty (2000, for which he won another Oscar).
Like Adam, a lot of these films will probably be kicked off my list once likely Oscar nominees like 'The Pianist' and 'The Quiet American' are given wider release, but duty demands a list:
10. Catch Me If You Can (Steven Spielberg) - I've pretty much said it all already. It could have been 'Chicago,' but I didn't like that one as much as 'Moulin Rouge,' or maybe more to the point, 'Dancer in the Dark.' Some critics have complained that it is overly long, but compared with 'A.I.' and 'Minority Report,' they should be happy that Stevie limited himself.
9. The Good Girl (Miguel Arteta) - I think I actually saw this one with both Sam and Adam in the same theater, something of a rarity for our so-called 'club.' The writing (Mike White, of 'Chuck and Buck' fame) was uproarious, and although the ending was unfulfilling, the acting of Jennifer Aniston and Zooey Deschanel is of a high caliber. It's pretty much a movie about people getting shat upon, but with some tender moments, and of course John C. Reilly and Jake Gyllenhall reprising the same roles I complained about in my last post.
8. Warm Water Under a Red Bridge (Shohei Imamura) - A laugh-out-loud adventure film from master Japanese director Imamura wherein a sad-sack and sacked Tokyo businessman travels to a small town looking for a valuable statue he heard about from a street bum and discovers a woman with gushing orgasms instead. How's that for a one sentence run-on exegesis? Just watch it, trust me.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Eric Baker
To: Sam Hallgren, Adam Kempenaar
Subject: A Tribute, and a few fine films of 2002
I just watched a masterpiece. After finally reading "In Cold Blood" over the holidays, Truman Capote's 1965 masterwork recounting the brutal murder of a Kansas farm family and subsequent tracking, trial, and execution of the killers, I had to see the film version which was done two years later by Richard Brooks in the very same Holcomb, Kansas where the crime occurred. Ultimately intended as a statement against the death penalty (maybe Illinois Gov. Ryan read it over the holidays, too) because six people died in cold blood, not just the family farm of four murdered on that cool November night in 1959, Capote's work stands as the standard-bearer for a genre. It established true crime drama as we know it and its popularity legitimized the currency of the literary journalism movement taking shape in the 1960s. Anyone preparing to become a journalist needs to read it, even though Tru (I'm one of his friends, he let me call him that) played fast and loose with the facts on occasion. Ebert gives a much better review of the film than I ever could, and puts a few somewhat current events concerning Robert Blake, the lead actor, in context. So why does any of this matter? Because this film marked a watershed period for a cinematographer in 1967, a guy named Conrad Hall who died on Jan. 4 of this year. I'm surprised Adam didn't comment on this, but the more I see of Hall's films, he strikes me as a guy with a vision. His camerawork and lighting have a trademark almost. 'In Cold Blood' was the third Oscar of many nominations for Hall, and Jeffrey Wells over at Movie Poop Shoot is convinced he will win posthumously this year for 'Road to Perdition.' For all the shortcomings I found in that film, I have to admit the shots were pretty magnificent. His resume is vast and varied, but just his films that received Academy nominations include: Saboteur: Code Name Morituri (1965), The Professionals (1966), In Cold Blood (1967), Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969, for which he won the Oscar), The Day of the Locust (1975), Tequila Sunrise (1988), Searching for Bobby Fischer (1993), and American Beauty (2000, for which he won another Oscar).
Like Adam, a lot of these films will probably be kicked off my list once likely Oscar nominees like 'The Pianist' and 'The Quiet American' are given wider release, but duty demands a list:
10. Catch Me If You Can (Steven Spielberg) - I've pretty much said it all already. It could have been 'Chicago,' but I didn't like that one as much as 'Moulin Rouge,' or maybe more to the point, 'Dancer in the Dark.' Some critics have complained that it is overly long, but compared with 'A.I.' and 'Minority Report,' they should be happy that Stevie limited himself.
9. The Good Girl (Miguel Arteta) - I think I actually saw this one with both Sam and Adam in the same theater, something of a rarity for our so-called 'club.' The writing (Mike White, of 'Chuck and Buck' fame) was uproarious, and although the ending was unfulfilling, the acting of Jennifer Aniston and Zooey Deschanel is of a high caliber. It's pretty much a movie about people getting shat upon, but with some tender moments, and of course John C. Reilly and Jake Gyllenhall reprising the same roles I complained about in my last post.
8. Warm Water Under a Red Bridge (Shohei Imamura) - A laugh-out-loud adventure film from master Japanese director Imamura wherein a sad-sack and sacked Tokyo businessman travels to a small town looking for a valuable statue he heard about from a street bum and discovers a woman with gushing orgasms instead. How's that for a one sentence run-on exegesis? Just watch it, trust me.
Wednesday, January 15, 2003
MOVIE CLUB - BEST FILMS OF 2002 (3)
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren, Eric Baker
Subject: A great year?
According to every critic I've read so far, 2002 was a very good year for movies. Considering that I have a solid list of 11 movies ranked among the elite of the year, followed by 10 more that just missed the cut, I'm inclinded to agree. Even the bad movies, or at least films I was ultimately critical of, were better than in years past -- films such as 'The Good Girl,' and 'Igby Goes Down, which I will discuss in more detail later. Of course, trying to rank movies in order of greatness is an arbitary and excruciating waste of time, but I find that often it does help me pinpoint exactly what I did or didn't like about a movie. My system, as mentioned in previous CS Movie Clubs, is fairly simple. I ask myself which film I am most anxious to see again/own on DVD, assuming all discs are created equal.
Now for the disclaimer. There are a handful of films I have yet to see that adorn a number of critics' ten-best lists and very well could end up sneaking onto mine at a later date. Recent films include: 'The Pianist', 'About Schmidt', 'Talk To Her.' Older films I wish I had seen: 'Bloody Sunday,' 'Auto Focus,' 'Red Dragon,' 'Full Frontal.' And for all of you Tolkien geeks out there: 'The Two Towers.' I want to see it, I really do. I just didn't expect it to make my top ten list, so it wasn't a priority. I'm ashamed to be comprising a list that doesn't at least consider the first three films I mentioned; I have no remorse about missing 'The Two Towers.' Sorry.
10. Far From Heaven(Todd Haynes) - Some complained that Haynes' lavish recreation of a Douglas Sirk '50s melodrama was like looking at a museum exhibit. But Haynes thwarts this criticism by making the social commentary as relevant now as it was then -- carefully exploring issues of race, gender, and sexual identity. Julianne Moore delivers arguably her best performance as the model housewife and mother whose seemingly perfect world is turned upside down. Her Cathy Whitaker is never a caricature, the woman who is concerned with social status above all else, while Dennis Quaid also turns in a career-defining performance as Cathy's closeted husband. I feared Quaid would seem too virile and macho for the role, but these traits just serve to make his downfall all the more tragic. Both deserve Oscar nominations, as does Edward Lachmann for cinematography and Peter Rogness for art direction.
9. Gangs of New York (Martin Scorsese) - Besides all of the usual Scorsese charms, including plenty of graphic violence, 'Gangs' is a must-see for Daniel Day-Lewis' performance as Bill the Butcher. Yes, he's slightly cartoonish with his exaggerated posture and accent, but he's absolutely terrifying as the 'godfather' of New York's Five Points. And like all good villains, he's multi-dimensional -- a character who is capable of feeling love, respect and friendship like everyone else, while also being able to rip out a man's heart without blinking. Even at 168 minutes the film could have used another half-hour -- I never quite believed Vallon's (Leonardo DiCaprio) quick ascension as the leader of the Irish immigrants -- and the voice-over should have been excised completely, but Scorsese's attention to detail and operatic style is irresistible.
8. 8 Mile (Curtis Hanson) - 'L.A. Confidential,' 'Wonder Boys,' and now this. Who knew the director of 'The Hand That Rocks The Cradle' could be so good? Hanson never lets '8 Mile's inspirational story of a talented young rapper trying to survive in a rough section of Detroit get preachy, and Eminem proves he's got legitimate acting chops to go along with his rhymimg skillzzzz. The "battle" scenes between the hip-hop wannabes are electric. It's a movie that's concerned just as much with personal responsibility and integrity as it is music.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren, Eric Baker
Subject: A great year?
According to every critic I've read so far, 2002 was a very good year for movies. Considering that I have a solid list of 11 movies ranked among the elite of the year, followed by 10 more that just missed the cut, I'm inclinded to agree. Even the bad movies, or at least films I was ultimately critical of, were better than in years past -- films such as 'The Good Girl,' and 'Igby Goes Down, which I will discuss in more detail later. Of course, trying to rank movies in order of greatness is an arbitary and excruciating waste of time, but I find that often it does help me pinpoint exactly what I did or didn't like about a movie. My system, as mentioned in previous CS Movie Clubs, is fairly simple. I ask myself which film I am most anxious to see again/own on DVD, assuming all discs are created equal.
Now for the disclaimer. There are a handful of films I have yet to see that adorn a number of critics' ten-best lists and very well could end up sneaking onto mine at a later date. Recent films include: 'The Pianist', 'About Schmidt', 'Talk To Her.' Older films I wish I had seen: 'Bloody Sunday,' 'Auto Focus,' 'Red Dragon,' 'Full Frontal.' And for all of you Tolkien geeks out there: 'The Two Towers.' I want to see it, I really do. I just didn't expect it to make my top ten list, so it wasn't a priority. I'm ashamed to be comprising a list that doesn't at least consider the first three films I mentioned; I have no remorse about missing 'The Two Towers.' Sorry.
10. Far From Heaven(Todd Haynes) - Some complained that Haynes' lavish recreation of a Douglas Sirk '50s melodrama was like looking at a museum exhibit. But Haynes thwarts this criticism by making the social commentary as relevant now as it was then -- carefully exploring issues of race, gender, and sexual identity. Julianne Moore delivers arguably her best performance as the model housewife and mother whose seemingly perfect world is turned upside down. Her Cathy Whitaker is never a caricature, the woman who is concerned with social status above all else, while Dennis Quaid also turns in a career-defining performance as Cathy's closeted husband. I feared Quaid would seem too virile and macho for the role, but these traits just serve to make his downfall all the more tragic. Both deserve Oscar nominations, as does Edward Lachmann for cinematography and Peter Rogness for art direction.
9. Gangs of New York (Martin Scorsese) - Besides all of the usual Scorsese charms, including plenty of graphic violence, 'Gangs' is a must-see for Daniel Day-Lewis' performance as Bill the Butcher. Yes, he's slightly cartoonish with his exaggerated posture and accent, but he's absolutely terrifying as the 'godfather' of New York's Five Points. And like all good villains, he's multi-dimensional -- a character who is capable of feeling love, respect and friendship like everyone else, while also being able to rip out a man's heart without blinking. Even at 168 minutes the film could have used another half-hour -- I never quite believed Vallon's (Leonardo DiCaprio) quick ascension as the leader of the Irish immigrants -- and the voice-over should have been excised completely, but Scorsese's attention to detail and operatic style is irresistible.
8. 8 Mile (Curtis Hanson) - 'L.A. Confidential,' 'Wonder Boys,' and now this. Who knew the director of 'The Hand That Rocks The Cradle' could be so good? Hanson never lets '8 Mile's inspirational story of a talented young rapper trying to survive in a rough section of Detroit get preachy, and Eminem proves he's got legitimate acting chops to go along with his rhymimg skillzzzz. The "battle" scenes between the hip-hop wannabes are electric. It's a movie that's concerned just as much with personal responsibility and integrity as it is music.
MOVIE CLUB - BEST FILMS OF 2002 (2)
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar, Eric Baker
Subject: The countdown begins...
10. Y Tu Mama Tambien (Alfonso Cuaron) - 'Y Tu Mama' makes it into my top ten only because, when I tried to decide between it and 'Bowling for Columbine,' I could only think of the things that annoyed me about 'Columbine.' And 'Y Tu Mama' was unlike anything I had ever seen. It’s about class, sex, friendship, loyalty. It’s a road trip movie, a coming-of-age movie, a thoughtful (if incomplete) meditation on modern-day Mexico. If the plot feels a little too tidy at the end, for the most part the film feels incredibly organic. And the acting is honest and relaxed and, in the very best way, improvisational. Maribel Verdu gives the female performance of the year as the boys’ seductress; and Gael Garcia Bernal is amazing as the lower middle class half of the two friends.
9. About Schmidt (Alexander Payne) - As a monument to the sustained greatness of Jack Nicholson, 'About Schmidt' is a great success. Film historians generations from now won’t have to ask, sadly, wistfully, what happened to Nicholson in the latter part of his career. Unfortunately, the film itself is undermined by the larger-than-life presence of Big Jack. What remains is still brilliant black comedy and keen -- if occasionally mean-spirited -- social observation. 'About Schmidt' is a more-than-worthy follow-up to Payne’s 'Election' (one of the best films of the '90s). This film, like a few other best-of-2002, will likely improve on re-examination.
8. Chicago (Rob Marshall) - As promised (by reviewers, friends, acquaintances), 'Chicago' proved to be one of the best times I’ve had at the theatre all year. It’s never more than an entertainment, and it never tries to be more than an entertainment, and that’s part of what makes this film such a fun time. As a general rule, I don’t like musicals -- not on stage and not at the movies. But 'Chicago' has great performances (it’s perfectly cast), great music, and unflagging energy. The film’s creative use of editing is alone worth great praise -- it accomplishes on film what would be impossible on stage. And the film’s cynicism -- a flaw for some critics -- is what made it so much fun for me: there were no heroes in the story and no one is redeemed; and this gave all the singing and dancing a nasty edge that made up for the film’s unapologetic superficiality. It was the quickest 113 minutes I’ve ever spent in a movie theatre.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar, Eric Baker
Subject: The countdown begins...
10. Y Tu Mama Tambien (Alfonso Cuaron) - 'Y Tu Mama' makes it into my top ten only because, when I tried to decide between it and 'Bowling for Columbine,' I could only think of the things that annoyed me about 'Columbine.' And 'Y Tu Mama' was unlike anything I had ever seen. It’s about class, sex, friendship, loyalty. It’s a road trip movie, a coming-of-age movie, a thoughtful (if incomplete) meditation on modern-day Mexico. If the plot feels a little too tidy at the end, for the most part the film feels incredibly organic. And the acting is honest and relaxed and, in the very best way, improvisational. Maribel Verdu gives the female performance of the year as the boys’ seductress; and Gael Garcia Bernal is amazing as the lower middle class half of the two friends.
9. About Schmidt (Alexander Payne) - As a monument to the sustained greatness of Jack Nicholson, 'About Schmidt' is a great success. Film historians generations from now won’t have to ask, sadly, wistfully, what happened to Nicholson in the latter part of his career. Unfortunately, the film itself is undermined by the larger-than-life presence of Big Jack. What remains is still brilliant black comedy and keen -- if occasionally mean-spirited -- social observation. 'About Schmidt' is a more-than-worthy follow-up to Payne’s 'Election' (one of the best films of the '90s). This film, like a few other best-of-2002, will likely improve on re-examination.
8. Chicago (Rob Marshall) - As promised (by reviewers, friends, acquaintances), 'Chicago' proved to be one of the best times I’ve had at the theatre all year. It’s never more than an entertainment, and it never tries to be more than an entertainment, and that’s part of what makes this film such a fun time. As a general rule, I don’t like musicals -- not on stage and not at the movies. But 'Chicago' has great performances (it’s perfectly cast), great music, and unflagging energy. The film’s creative use of editing is alone worth great praise -- it accomplishes on film what would be impossible on stage. And the film’s cynicism -- a flaw for some critics -- is what made it so much fun for me: there were no heroes in the story and no one is redeemed; and this gave all the singing and dancing a nasty edge that made up for the film’s unapologetic superficiality. It was the quickest 113 minutes I’ve ever spent in a movie theatre.
MOVIE CLUB - BEST FILMS OF 2002 (1)
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?'
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
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?'
Tuesday, January 14, 2003
MOVIE REVIEW ROUNDUP - Remember, tomorrow Sam Hallgren and I (and Eric Baker?) will unveil our Top Ten Films of 2002. Actually, we'll start with 10-6 and leave 5-1 for Thursday just to generate some suspense. But first, I'd be remiss if I didn't get a few comments in about a couple of the movies I managed to cram in recently. I'll save discussion of '25th Hour' and 'Catch Me If You Can' for later in the week because -- spoiler alert! -- I expect both films to be in my top ten somewhere.
ADAPTATION - As many people much smarter than me have pointed out, the problem with irony is that if everything is a joke, something to ridicule and laugh at with a wink, than nothing truly meaningful can ever transpire. Charlie Kaufman and Spike Jonze have given us a movie that begs to be interpreted as a satirical jab at Hollywood (Roger Ebert's interpretation) -- Cage's Kaufman spells out early on exactly what his movie will NOT include (car chases, sex, drugs, characters who grow, etc...) then proceeds to fill his finale with all of those things -- while the "real" story about Kaufman's difficulties adapting 'The Orchid Thief' ends with him having a seemingly serious moment of growth and realization after the mock-tragic outcome of his twin brother, Donald. He seems to want it both ways -- to mock and ridicule and then, perhaps, sting us with seriousness at the end. But it's like crying wolf. By that point, I wasn't listening. As Sam wrote last week, "But the movie "Adaptation" is about Charlie Kaufman. He experiences his own transformation, and so the characters in his screenplay experience one as well." I am typically a big fan of irony and all things post-modern, but 'Adaptation' left me worn out and frustrated. I wouldn't say I disliked the movie by any means, though. I thought Cage and Chris Cooper were fantastic and some of the dialogue is laugh-out-loud funny. The fact that I am curious to see it again is always a positive sign.
ANTWONE FISHER - Denzel's Washington's directorial debut is impossible to watch without recalling 'Good Will Hunting' and its inspiration, 'Ordinary People,' both of which are better films. The title character (newcomer Derek Luke) isn't a genius, but he's a smart kid with anger-management and abandonment issues that only get resolved through the help of his Naval psychiatrist, Dr. Davenport (Washington). There's even the customary scene where the unwilling patient -- Antwone is sent to Davenport by his commanding officer for fighting (just like Hunting) -- initially sits silently through session after session, each character ultimately waiting for the other to blink. One interesting difference is that both 'Hunting' and 'Ordinary People' hinged on the protagonist learning to forgive himself for all of the bad he has experienced in his life ("It's not your fault, it's not your fault"), whereas 'Fisher' is all about Antwone being able to forgive the people who have hurt him -- the mother who abandoned him as a baby, the step-parents who abused him, etc... It would be easy to denouce 'Fisher' as inspirational Hollywood crap, but I was moved by the story and felt that as a director, Washington never let the movie slip too far into sentimentality. However, I can appreciate Michael Atkinson's comments in the Village Voice: "Everything—even life on an aircraft carrier—is sentimentalized... Antwone Fisher is, in the end, a navy recruitment ad writ large and cozy." The scenes aboard the aircraft carrier did strike me as cliched -- Fisher's group of friends inevitably includes one fat guy and a skinny white boy -- but Atkinson's cynicism is perhaps getting the best of him here. The ship scenes total about 10 minutes of screen time and while the movie doesn't try to hide the fact that the Navy played a pivotal role in Fisher's maturity as a man, it by no means implies that it is the only answer. To think that as a director Washington was more interested in promoting the Navy than telling Antwone Fisher's story seems to me a bit ridiculous.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
ADAPTATION - As many people much smarter than me have pointed out, the problem with irony is that if everything is a joke, something to ridicule and laugh at with a wink, than nothing truly meaningful can ever transpire. Charlie Kaufman and Spike Jonze have given us a movie that begs to be interpreted as a satirical jab at Hollywood (Roger Ebert's interpretation) -- Cage's Kaufman spells out early on exactly what his movie will NOT include (car chases, sex, drugs, characters who grow, etc...) then proceeds to fill his finale with all of those things -- while the "real" story about Kaufman's difficulties adapting 'The Orchid Thief' ends with him having a seemingly serious moment of growth and realization after the mock-tragic outcome of his twin brother, Donald. He seems to want it both ways -- to mock and ridicule and then, perhaps, sting us with seriousness at the end. But it's like crying wolf. By that point, I wasn't listening. As Sam wrote last week, "But the movie "Adaptation" is about Charlie Kaufman. He experiences his own transformation, and so the characters in his screenplay experience one as well." I am typically a big fan of irony and all things post-modern, but 'Adaptation' left me worn out and frustrated. I wouldn't say I disliked the movie by any means, though. I thought Cage and Chris Cooper were fantastic and some of the dialogue is laugh-out-loud funny. The fact that I am curious to see it again is always a positive sign.
ANTWONE FISHER - Denzel's Washington's directorial debut is impossible to watch without recalling 'Good Will Hunting' and its inspiration, 'Ordinary People,' both of which are better films. The title character (newcomer Derek Luke) isn't a genius, but he's a smart kid with anger-management and abandonment issues that only get resolved through the help of his Naval psychiatrist, Dr. Davenport (Washington). There's even the customary scene where the unwilling patient -- Antwone is sent to Davenport by his commanding officer for fighting (just like Hunting) -- initially sits silently through session after session, each character ultimately waiting for the other to blink. One interesting difference is that both 'Hunting' and 'Ordinary People' hinged on the protagonist learning to forgive himself for all of the bad he has experienced in his life ("It's not your fault, it's not your fault"), whereas 'Fisher' is all about Antwone being able to forgive the people who have hurt him -- the mother who abandoned him as a baby, the step-parents who abused him, etc... It would be easy to denouce 'Fisher' as inspirational Hollywood crap, but I was moved by the story and felt that as a director, Washington never let the movie slip too far into sentimentality. However, I can appreciate Michael Atkinson's comments in the Village Voice: "Everything—even life on an aircraft carrier—is sentimentalized... Antwone Fisher is, in the end, a navy recruitment ad writ large and cozy." The scenes aboard the aircraft carrier did strike me as cliched -- Fisher's group of friends inevitably includes one fat guy and a skinny white boy -- but Atkinson's cynicism is perhaps getting the best of him here. The ship scenes total about 10 minutes of screen time and while the movie doesn't try to hide the fact that the Navy played a pivotal role in Fisher's maturity as a man, it by no means implies that it is the only answer. To think that as a director Washington was more interested in promoting the Navy than telling Antwone Fisher's story seems to me a bit ridiculous.
Monday, January 13, 2003
RAIN DELAY & THE HOURS - I've got less than an hour to try to squeeze in some blogging, so here goes. First off, Sam and I will not be publishing our Top Ten of 2002 until Wednesday. There are a handful of movies I have to see before then or else my list could wind up being illegitimate -- namely, 'Y Tu Mama Tambien' (which I rented on DVD this weekend) and 'Gangs of New York' (which I will see Tuesday night.) I hope to fit in 'About Schmidt' as well, but no guarantees. Tuesday I will have brief reviews of all the movies I have seen over the past two weeks that I haven't found time to write about yet -- 'Adaptation,' 'Antwone Fisher,' 'Catch Me If You Can' and Spike Lee's '25th Hour.' I'll also try to throw in some comments about two rentals from this past weekend -- 'Lovely & Amazing,' which was anything but, and 'Unfaithful.' I had to see whether Diane Lane's performance lived up to all the hype.
Considering that Sam's least favorite films of the year so far are 'Lovely and Amazing' and '13 Conversations About One Thing,' both directed by women, I can't imagine he would have enjoyed Stephen Daldry's 'The Hours' had he tagged along to the special screening I attended last Tuesday night. Of course, Daldry is not a woman, but the film is most certainly centered around women and, one could argue, presents the same set of problems as those movies. Sam wrote: "Both scripts suffered from a terminal lack of subtext and an annoying tendency to have their characters psychologically evaluate each other." Congratulations Sam, you just summed up 'The Hours' in one sentence. As is my tendency these days, I hadn't read a single review of the movie before going in, but I couldn't help but recall David Edelstein's quip in the Slate Movie Club that 'The Hours' was the longest pair of 'em he had spent all year. I feared I was going to suffer similarly after the opening credit sequence, which introduces us to the film's three female protagonists and sets up the movie's structural conceit of slipping between three different eras -- the 1920s, '50s and the present day. I expected the connections between the three characters to be clear, but I didn't expect the editing to be so obvious as to cut from Nicole Kidman's Virginia Woolf brushing her hair to Julianne Moore's '50s housewife brushing her hair, to Meryl Streep's modern day woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown brushing her hair, and so on interminably. Fortunately, the credits weren't indicative of the whole film, which isn't to say that Daldry and screenwriter David Hare couldn't have employed more subtlelty throughout. If subtext and characters who don't emotionally undress each other every time they speak is what you want in a movie -- and usually I do -- you will loathe 'The Hours.' Yet, somehow I didn't loathe it. All of the performances were predictably first-rate -- unlike Sam and a few others I know, I love Julianne Moore -- and the story cleverly culminates in a way that connects the three narratives in a literal, and not just figurative, sense. I'm sure some people in the audience saw it coming, but for me it was a "surprise" ending that worked because it felt absolutely organic, rather than shaking the foundations of the narrative. My one major criticism is one that was discussed in the Slate Movie Club to some extent -- the Philip Glass score. I come from the school that says that music in both theater and film should be felt and not heard. If you're actually listening to the score, then it is distracting you from the film. My own personal preference would be to never have to listen music with dialogue. If the screenwriter, director and actors are all doing their jobs, then I don't need music to direct my emotions. In the case of 'The Hours,' the score is not only bothersome because it enduced flashbacks of watching 'The Thin Blue Line' (also, Glass' work, of course) but it is virtually omni-present throughout the film. During the post-screening Q&A, the book's author, Michael Cunningham -- a charming, intelligent, self-deprecating but confident writer who could easily allay any problems you had with the movie -- said that the choice to use the score in such a heavy-handed manner was a deliberate one, though I can't report precisely what the intent was because I wasn't taking notes at this point and his explanation was a bit convoluted... something about standing in for the lyrical quality of the novel (not his novel, specifically, but novels in general). He admitted that it will bother some people because it is not what audiences are used to. It's definitely not background music, and it doesn't necessarily correspond with what is occurring on screen. "I love it for that," Cunningham said. So I guess we can fault the filmmakers for producing a bad/distracting score, but we can't fault them for not understanding how to use music because they clearly made a choice to use it a certain way. When asked what some of his favorite movies were growing up, Cunningham listed Altman's 'McCabe and Mrs. Miller,' 'Chinatown,' 'All About Eve' (which he followed with a humorous "of course," acknowledging the obviousness of a gay man picking that film), and the two Godfather movies.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Considering that Sam's least favorite films of the year so far are 'Lovely and Amazing' and '13 Conversations About One Thing,' both directed by women, I can't imagine he would have enjoyed Stephen Daldry's 'The Hours' had he tagged along to the special screening I attended last Tuesday night. Of course, Daldry is not a woman, but the film is most certainly centered around women and, one could argue, presents the same set of problems as those movies. Sam wrote: "Both scripts suffered from a terminal lack of subtext and an annoying tendency to have their characters psychologically evaluate each other." Congratulations Sam, you just summed up 'The Hours' in one sentence. As is my tendency these days, I hadn't read a single review of the movie before going in, but I couldn't help but recall David Edelstein's quip in the Slate Movie Club that 'The Hours' was the longest pair of 'em he had spent all year. I feared I was going to suffer similarly after the opening credit sequence, which introduces us to the film's three female protagonists and sets up the movie's structural conceit of slipping between three different eras -- the 1920s, '50s and the present day. I expected the connections between the three characters to be clear, but I didn't expect the editing to be so obvious as to cut from Nicole Kidman's Virginia Woolf brushing her hair to Julianne Moore's '50s housewife brushing her hair, to Meryl Streep's modern day woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown brushing her hair, and so on interminably. Fortunately, the credits weren't indicative of the whole film, which isn't to say that Daldry and screenwriter David Hare couldn't have employed more subtlelty throughout. If subtext and characters who don't emotionally undress each other every time they speak is what you want in a movie -- and usually I do -- you will loathe 'The Hours.' Yet, somehow I didn't loathe it. All of the performances were predictably first-rate -- unlike Sam and a few others I know, I love Julianne Moore -- and the story cleverly culminates in a way that connects the three narratives in a literal, and not just figurative, sense. I'm sure some people in the audience saw it coming, but for me it was a "surprise" ending that worked because it felt absolutely organic, rather than shaking the foundations of the narrative. My one major criticism is one that was discussed in the Slate Movie Club to some extent -- the Philip Glass score. I come from the school that says that music in both theater and film should be felt and not heard. If you're actually listening to the score, then it is distracting you from the film. My own personal preference would be to never have to listen music with dialogue. If the screenwriter, director and actors are all doing their jobs, then I don't need music to direct my emotions. In the case of 'The Hours,' the score is not only bothersome because it enduced flashbacks of watching 'The Thin Blue Line' (also, Glass' work, of course) but it is virtually omni-present throughout the film. During the post-screening Q&A, the book's author, Michael Cunningham -- a charming, intelligent, self-deprecating but confident writer who could easily allay any problems you had with the movie -- said that the choice to use the score in such a heavy-handed manner was a deliberate one, though I can't report precisely what the intent was because I wasn't taking notes at this point and his explanation was a bit convoluted... something about standing in for the lyrical quality of the novel (not his novel, specifically, but novels in general). He admitted that it will bother some people because it is not what audiences are used to. It's definitely not background music, and it doesn't necessarily correspond with what is occurring on screen. "I love it for that," Cunningham said. So I guess we can fault the filmmakers for producing a bad/distracting score, but we can't fault them for not understanding how to use music because they clearly made a choice to use it a certain way. When asked what some of his favorite movies were growing up, Cunningham listed Altman's 'McCabe and Mrs. Miller,' 'Chinatown,' 'All About Eve' (which he followed with a humorous "of course," acknowledging the obviousness of a gay man picking that film), and the two Godfather movies.
Thursday, January 09, 2003
CS MOVIE CLUB - #2
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren
Subject: Tying up loose ends
By the length of Sam's last post, I think it's safe to say that he'll be playing the role of A.O Scott in our little movie club. If Harvey Weinstein was in charge of this blog, Sam's post would have been trimmed by at least a half-hour. Meanwhile, I'll be Roger Ebert, sneaking in 100 words or so whenever I can. Since there are enough interesting points in your comments to keep me writing for days, I'll try to pace myself and take them one at a time... which would mean starting with a discussion of 'The Hours.' However, I'm going to keep losing sleep if I don't nail the coffin shut on our feeble attempt to answer Sight & Sound with our list of the best films since 1978.
I think I revealed the list back on Dec. 20, and if you hadn't finally written about it last week, it would have been a complete waste of time. In our defense, Christmas came... and then New Years... and is it just me or, more than ever before, are all the good movies being released around the end of the year, forcing us to see everything in a whirlwind two-week period? I remember when the Fall movie season included October and November. Now all the studios are holding out for the holidays, presumably because they want their Oscar contenders as fresh as possible in everyone's mind. I suppose we'll see if all the year's best really did come out around Christmas when we reveal our top ten lists next week.
Here again is our list of the best films of the past 25 years:
1. Glengarry Glen Ross (James Foley, 1989)
2. Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese, 1980)
3. GoodFellas (Scorsese, 1991)
4. Hannah and Her Sisters (Woody Allen, 1986)
5. Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979)
6. Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1994)
7. Rushmore (Wes Anderson, 1998)
8. Do The Right Thing (Spike Lee, 1989)
9. The Deer Hunter (Michael Cimino, 1978)
10. Henry V (Kenneth Branagh, 1989)
One thing I've always appreciated about you, Sam, in the fairly brief time we've known each other, is your fearlessness when it comes to defying conventional wisdom. This would include branding 'Lovely and Amazing' as the worst film of the year even though many critics list it among the ten best. (I still haven't seen it, unfortunately.) In your post back on Dec. 30, you had the balls -- or blatant stupidity -- to state you aren't a huge fan of Martin Scorsese. If you were picking one Scorsese film to watch, it wouldn't be 'Raging Bull' or 'GoodFellas' or any of the other more critically-adored of his films. Rather, you'd watch 'After Hours.' It's sort of like making a list of the "greatest" movies of all-time and then a separate list of your "favorite" movies of all-time. A personal example would be Kubrick's '2001,' which is an amazing technical achievement. But if I had to pick between watching it and Chevy Chase in 'Fletch', well, just call me John Cocktoasten. The thing with Scorsese though, for me anyway, is that 'Raging Bull' and 'GoodFellas' are not only deservedly recognized as great cinematic achievements, but I also love watching them. I can remember watching 'Raging Bull' the first two or three times and marveling at the acting, the cinematography, and the editing of the boxing scenes, without ever considering the complexity of LaMotta as a character, or really thinking about what Scorsese was trying to say about how you truly can't judge someone without standing in their shoes. For all of his seemingly unfounded paranoia about being betrayed and our disdain for him as a violent, overgrown kid, his worst fears are ultimately realized. LaMotta was right all along. As for 'GoodFellas,' it just proves that the "bad guys" are always the most fascinating characters. The famous steadicam shot of Henry's little stroll through the back of the Copacabana isn't just to impress Karen; Scorsese is allowing us to indulge in the fantasy as well.
We must say thanks to Eric for putting 'Henry V' high enough on his list to force it into our top ten and then quickly leaving the country before having to defend himself. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of both 'Henry V' and Kenneth Branagh. But one of the ten best films since 1978?
A.I. Fan from the Feedback Forum should know that 'Hannah Her Sisters' was not my contribution to the list. Surprisingly, I didn't pick a single Woody Allen film. If I had, it would have been 'Crimes and Misdemeanors,' but 'Hannah' does follow a close second to 'Crimes' on my list of favorite Allen films not named 'Annie Hall.'
Curiously, one selection that I find a bit questionable is Wes Anderson's 'Rushmore." It made both of your individual lists, but if 'Raging Bull' and 'GoodFellas' seem like convenient, almost de facto picks, 'Rushmore' strikes me as basically the same just for a younger generation. It's the film that movie geeks like us just have to worship, even if 'The Royal Tenenbaums' and 'Bottle Rocket' are both arguably better films.
And then there's 'Glengarry Glen Ross,' which topped our poll based on the fact that it was the only movie to appear on all three of our lists. Another movie that we can appreciate for its luminous acting and writing, but also simply enjoy watching it endlessly. I remember a friend in college telling me how he didn't really like 'Glengarry' because the 'Mr. Fuck You' scene with Alec Baldwin was so abusive that he had a bad taste in his mouth the whole rest of the film. My response was, "Yeah, and..." Is there a scene in any film ever that is more unsettling and hilarious at the same time?
Movies that were on my list that nobody else had: Lone Star, Boogie Nights, Blue Velvet, Fargo
Movies only on Eric's list: Henry V, Ordinary People, In the Mood For Love, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Days of Heaven, There's Something About Mary
Movies only on Sam's list: Yi Yi, Miller's Crossing, The Matrix, Hannah and Her Sisters, The Insider
Now that this list is officially dead and buried, we can get on with discussing 2002. Along with 'The Hours,' I'll have comments about 'Antwone Fisher,' 'Adaptation' and 'Catch Me If You Can.'
Until next time,
Adam
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Adam Kempenaar
To: Sam Hallgren
Subject: Tying up loose ends
By the length of Sam's last post, I think it's safe to say that he'll be playing the role of A.O Scott in our little movie club. If Harvey Weinstein was in charge of this blog, Sam's post would have been trimmed by at least a half-hour. Meanwhile, I'll be Roger Ebert, sneaking in 100 words or so whenever I can. Since there are enough interesting points in your comments to keep me writing for days, I'll try to pace myself and take them one at a time... which would mean starting with a discussion of 'The Hours.' However, I'm going to keep losing sleep if I don't nail the coffin shut on our feeble attempt to answer Sight & Sound with our list of the best films since 1978.
I think I revealed the list back on Dec. 20, and if you hadn't finally written about it last week, it would have been a complete waste of time. In our defense, Christmas came... and then New Years... and is it just me or, more than ever before, are all the good movies being released around the end of the year, forcing us to see everything in a whirlwind two-week period? I remember when the Fall movie season included October and November. Now all the studios are holding out for the holidays, presumably because they want their Oscar contenders as fresh as possible in everyone's mind. I suppose we'll see if all the year's best really did come out around Christmas when we reveal our top ten lists next week.
Here again is our list of the best films of the past 25 years:
1. Glengarry Glen Ross (James Foley, 1989)
2. Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese, 1980)
3. GoodFellas (Scorsese, 1991)
4. Hannah and Her Sisters (Woody Allen, 1986)
5. Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979)
6. Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1994)
7. Rushmore (Wes Anderson, 1998)
8. Do The Right Thing (Spike Lee, 1989)
9. The Deer Hunter (Michael Cimino, 1978)
10. Henry V (Kenneth Branagh, 1989)
One thing I've always appreciated about you, Sam, in the fairly brief time we've known each other, is your fearlessness when it comes to defying conventional wisdom. This would include branding 'Lovely and Amazing' as the worst film of the year even though many critics list it among the ten best. (I still haven't seen it, unfortunately.) In your post back on Dec. 30, you had the balls -- or blatant stupidity -- to state you aren't a huge fan of Martin Scorsese. If you were picking one Scorsese film to watch, it wouldn't be 'Raging Bull' or 'GoodFellas' or any of the other more critically-adored of his films. Rather, you'd watch 'After Hours.' It's sort of like making a list of the "greatest" movies of all-time and then a separate list of your "favorite" movies of all-time. A personal example would be Kubrick's '2001,' which is an amazing technical achievement. But if I had to pick between watching it and Chevy Chase in 'Fletch', well, just call me John Cocktoasten. The thing with Scorsese though, for me anyway, is that 'Raging Bull' and 'GoodFellas' are not only deservedly recognized as great cinematic achievements, but I also love watching them. I can remember watching 'Raging Bull' the first two or three times and marveling at the acting, the cinematography, and the editing of the boxing scenes, without ever considering the complexity of LaMotta as a character, or really thinking about what Scorsese was trying to say about how you truly can't judge someone without standing in their shoes. For all of his seemingly unfounded paranoia about being betrayed and our disdain for him as a violent, overgrown kid, his worst fears are ultimately realized. LaMotta was right all along. As for 'GoodFellas,' it just proves that the "bad guys" are always the most fascinating characters. The famous steadicam shot of Henry's little stroll through the back of the Copacabana isn't just to impress Karen; Scorsese is allowing us to indulge in the fantasy as well.
We must say thanks to Eric for putting 'Henry V' high enough on his list to force it into our top ten and then quickly leaving the country before having to defend himself. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of both 'Henry V' and Kenneth Branagh. But one of the ten best films since 1978?
A.I. Fan from the Feedback Forum should know that 'Hannah Her Sisters' was not my contribution to the list. Surprisingly, I didn't pick a single Woody Allen film. If I had, it would have been 'Crimes and Misdemeanors,' but 'Hannah' does follow a close second to 'Crimes' on my list of favorite Allen films not named 'Annie Hall.'
Curiously, one selection that I find a bit questionable is Wes Anderson's 'Rushmore." It made both of your individual lists, but if 'Raging Bull' and 'GoodFellas' seem like convenient, almost de facto picks, 'Rushmore' strikes me as basically the same just for a younger generation. It's the film that movie geeks like us just have to worship, even if 'The Royal Tenenbaums' and 'Bottle Rocket' are both arguably better films.
And then there's 'Glengarry Glen Ross,' which topped our poll based on the fact that it was the only movie to appear on all three of our lists. Another movie that we can appreciate for its luminous acting and writing, but also simply enjoy watching it endlessly. I remember a friend in college telling me how he didn't really like 'Glengarry' because the 'Mr. Fuck You' scene with Alec Baldwin was so abusive that he had a bad taste in his mouth the whole rest of the film. My response was, "Yeah, and..." Is there a scene in any film ever that is more unsettling and hilarious at the same time?
Movies that were on my list that nobody else had: Lone Star, Boogie Nights, Blue Velvet, Fargo
Movies only on Eric's list: Henry V, Ordinary People, In the Mood For Love, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Days of Heaven, There's Something About Mary
Movies only on Sam's list: Yi Yi, Miller's Crossing, The Matrix, Hannah and Her Sisters, The Insider
Now that this list is officially dead and buried, we can get on with discussing 2002. Along with 'The Hours,' I'll have comments about 'Antwone Fisher,' 'Adaptation' and 'Catch Me If You Can.'
Until next time,
Adam
Wednesday, January 08, 2003
CS MOVIE CLUB - #1
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar
Subject: 13 Conversations about 4 Movies
My reaction to the news that you were going to see "The Hours" last night: curiosity, mixed with the mild pull of duty. I had no plans myself. I almost called and asked if I could tag along or at least offer to see the film on my own so we could share fresh views. But the closer it got to quittin' time, the less I felt I had the energy to go through with it. And I want to see "The Hours." I'm curious. I didn't like the book, which had come recommended; but not long after I finished it I saw that they were making it into a film and especially when I saw the cast, I was immediately interested in seeing it. As I recall, the whole structure of the book seemed forced and kind of pretentious. Maybe I was intrigued by the poetic detail of the book, and I wondered how that would translate to the screen. Anyway, I think it's the kind of film I'd rather see on a rainy Saturday afternoon. Or in the comfort of my own home.
So instead of going to "The Hours," I went straight home after work, with the intention of pounding out my CinemaScoped post. I knew that it would take me a while to articulate (and to recall) my responses to the four year-end films I've seen since Christmas. I started writing. Didn't like how it was going. Got tempted by Netflix's latest shipment: "Lovely and Amazing." I had only rented "Lovely and Amazing" because it was being mentioned in some year-end-best conversations -- for the film itself and for Catherine Keener's performance. Writer/director Nicole Holofcener's film, a rambling examination of a few tumultuous days in the lives of three women (Keener, Emily Mortimer, and Brenda Blethyn), is the worst film I have seen all year. A terribly-directed, dramatically stagnant mess. It is beyond my comprehension what redeeming value anyone could see in this film. Keener gives a noxious variation on her caustic oddball character (as seen in "Being John Malkovich," "Out of Sight" and "Full Frontal") that actually made me cringe. Honestly, it's the worst and most misguided performance by an actor I have seen in a long, long time. The critical success of this film (84% fresh on the Tomatometer) and it's equally bad indie counterpart "13 Conversations About One Thing" (86%) -- really bewilders me. The films have been praised for their emotional directness and their honesty. Both scripts suffered from a terminal lack of subtext, and an annoying tendency to have their characters psychologically evaluate each other. I really didn't want to go on so long about this film. I want the whole experience erased from my memory. I do want to note the performance of child actor Raven Goodwin, who plays Brenda Blethyn's adopted 8-year-old daughter. I wish I could describe the sight of this child actor out-performing everyone else in the film. It is an incredibly naturalistic performance. Just hope that she lands some more roles. Please avoid "Lovely and Amazing" at all costs.
Apropos of nothing. Actresses everyone seems to like but me: Catherine Keener and Julianne Moore.
"Adaptation." I gather you didn't like it. It was almost my favorite movie of the year. Among the things I loved about it: that even though Kaufman didn't trust his adaptation of "The Orchid Thief," the stuff that we see from his adaptation (the scenes with Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper) suggests a movie that I wish I could see. And I would have resented this -- and, if I'm honest with myself, I'll admit that I did resent it a little bit -- if Nicolas Cage hadn't been so incredible and Kaufman's "self-flagellating" (your description) script wasn't so inventive and funny and Jonze's direction wasn't so detailed and inspiring. Yes, the film has flaws. I think everyone who worked on the film knew that "Adaptation" was flawed and believed it was worth working on anyway. You don't get performances as well articulated as those in "Adaptation" without the cast having complete faith in the enterprise they're taking on. Credit for this has to go to Spike Jonze. There have been arguments that the movie is narcissistic; that it's actually much more traditional than it lets on (was Fosse really being "meta" in "All That Jazz," Adam, or was he doing what Woody Allen does each and every year -- make a film about himself, sometimes casting himself in the lead, sometimes casting Kenneth Branagh or John Cusack or Sean Penn?); and that it's cynical. I really think it's brilliant. And I don't think it's cynical at all. But the ending troubles me. I was literally kept awake nights thinking about the ending. I didn't get it. In the days that followed my Christmas Day viewing of the film, I scoured critical appraisals of the film for insight into the "troublesome third act" (as it was invariably described). Most reviewers either avoided a direct discussion of it or wrote it off as an unfortunate act of hari-kari. Now that I've read several interpretations of the film's ending -- thanks in large part to the discussion on Slate's brilliant movie club -- I'm still unsatisfied. For my part, I kept going back to McKee's advice to Charlie that the ending had to come from "a change in the characters themselves." I took this to mean the Susan Orlean (Streep) and John Laroche (Cooper) characters. But the movie "Adaptation" is about Charlie Kaufman. He experiences his own transformation, and so the characters in his screenplay experience one as well. Still the ending wasn't satisfying for me. As much as I liked -- and, more importantly, believed -- Cage in the dual roles, I didn't experience anything resembling catharsis when Charlie's brother Donald dies and Charlie undergoes a sudden emotional maturity. I just didn't go there. For one thing, I was so disoriented by the last third of the movie, and that it went on as long as it did, that I lost any sense of what was real. This is a major flaw. Also, I'm not sure that Jonze and Kaufman realize, or give enough credit for, how invested the audience gets in the Streep and Cooper characters. But I wonder how it will look under re-examination. Whatever the ending is actually intended to accomplish, I trust that Jonze and Kaufman meant it to be un-cynical. Which is good enough for me. I look forward to seeing it again.
Streep's husband in "Adaptation" is played by "8 Mile" director Curtis Hanson. Why has no one pointed this out? Bizarre.
If Spike Jonze has a gift for finding reality in the absurd, Alexander Payne is just as gifted at finding the absurd that permeates reality. I first heard about "About Schmidt" early last year during the Cannes and Sundance film festivals, or maybe it was even earlier than that. It was probably my most anticipated movie of the year. I loved "Election." I loved Payne's instinct for realistic comic detail and his deadpan style. "About Schmidt" does not disappoint in this vein. It's just as textured and observant as "Election," and just as dark and funny. The problem with the film -- and it's a big one -- is the casting of Jack Nicholson. He's just too big for the part. He overwhelms the film's attention to emotional detail and its tone of desperation. I spent large parts of the film wishing they had cast someone else, maybe Robert Duvall or Paul Newman or Tom Wilkinson. It's not that Nicholson gives a bad performance -- it's actually very restrained and honest; it's just that it's Jack Nicholson-, and it was impossible for me to ever forget that fact. Warren Schmidt is a bitter, pathetic retiree. Jack Nicholson is one of the most naturally charismatic actors of all time. Have you seen "The Last Detail," Adam? Just electric charisma and talent. There's a scene in "About Schmidt" where Schmidt visits his college fraternity. We see Schmidt looking at a wall of photos cataloguing previous generations of frat brothers. The college-age Schmidt we see in the photo is unmistakably Nicholson. Grinning like a cat and up to no good. Would this man end up a retired actuary in Omaha, Nebraska? Maybe. But it takes some serious suspension of disbelief. Still. The movie is great. Not as moving as it would have been with another Schmidt?at least not for me?but still a great film by one of the most my favorite directors working today.
Next. I spent the first 40 minutes of "Gangs of New York" imagining how good the book the film is based on must be. I couldn't have been less involved in the story or the place or any of the characters. But somehow by the end of the movie, some two hours later, I was completely wrapped up in it. Despite its messiness and blatant theatricality (which starts a vice and ends a virtue), "Gangs" is one of my favorite movies of the year. I don't remember the last time I left a movie feeling so overwhelmed and fulfilled -- probably not since the first "Lord of the Rings." And as with "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring," "Gangs" succeeds in large part thanks to the performance of a "supporting" actor. In the first "Rings," Ian McKellen gave Middle Earth a sense of reality and place that kept the story firmly rooted in the familiar (something sorely lacking in "The Two Towers"). In "Gangs," Daniel Day-Lewis gives one of the most exciting performances I have ever seen in my life. His Bill the Butcher dominates the movie, and, like McKellen, defines the movie as well. To call these "supporting" roles is a serious understatement. Everything about "Gangs" is stagey and theatrical. The sets, the costumes, the performances. But if they are stagey, they are epically stagey; and it is the movie's scope that won me over. I liken those first 40 minutes to the suspension of disbelief that any playgoer must employ to accept a stage reality. Sometimes it takes until intermission for the reality of the play to take hold. Once "Gangs" really gets going, which pretty much coincides with Lewis's re-emergence as Bill the Butcher/King of the Five Points, I was swept away. When the credits finally rolled and U2 came blaring through the speakers, I felt like I'd been run over by a tank. I couldn't move. I had one of those rare movie experiences where my sense of awe became a physical sensation. For that alone, it should be my favorite movie of the year; but it's not (more on this when we reveal our top films of the year). The performances in "Gangs" are good across the board. DiCaprio seems to be getting some flak, but I liked him. He occasionally slips into 21st century naturalism, but this is Scorsese's fault as much as DiCaprio's. And Cameron Diaz is very good as well, especially as the movie goes on. Somehow Diaz has become a very reliable dramatic actress. I'm not sure how this happened. She won't get nominated, but she should. And if it were up to me, DiCaprio would get a nomination as well as best supporting actor. The only lead actor in the film is Day-Lewis. And his performance is worth the price of admission. If you haven't seen it yet, Adam, see it in the theatre. Don't risk missing the sheer size of this movie. There's a lot more I liked and didn't like about the movie; but let's discuss that once you've seen it.
Lastly, and briefly, "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers." As I've said, I liked the first one a lot. This one lost me. I was reminded of the fact that I generally don't like, and find it difficult to suspend my disbelief for, fantasy films. There wasn't enough McKellen, and I kept forgetting what the point of the whole mission was. I had too many questions. And yet the film is beautiful and a real joy to watch -- to look at, rather. Gollum is a fascinating character and a CGI miracle. I just never got caught up in the momentum of the story, which was taken a bit for granted while we were introduced to new characters, new beasties, exposed to new parts of Middle Earth, etc. It is an amazing achievement, and I'm willing to bet that the third installment will win me over again. Again, we can discuss this further when you see it.
If you haven't seen it, check out Jeffrey Wells' "Hollywood Elsewhere" column (posted today) about Daniel Day-Lewis. It's bizarre. He seems to be criticizing Lewis for choosing not to act because he doesn't find fulfillment in it. For comparison, he invokes all the hardworking stiffs out there who may not like their jobs, but who do them anyway. I'd love to see Lewis in more films myself, but if the guy doesn't want to act, leave him alone. Acting is not like other jobs. It's more like a drug habit than a job. For many professional actors, the job is frequently unfulfilling, particularly, it seems, for those we consider our very best actors (Anthony Hopkins threatens to quit the business after every other film he makes); at the end of the day, you're pretending to be someone else. And if you have exacting standards of how to achieve this magic act (of becoming someone else), you can become more and more convinced that it just isn't possible. And the effort can be physically and mentally exhausting. Many actors find peace with the profession before burning themselves out (please see the still very watchable Robert De Niro for a great example; Al Pacino is alternately phoning it in and killing himself with effort -- also, he took five years off in the 80s due to burnout). Lewis is a gifted actor; he seems born to do it. But he can't go halfway. It's all or nothing with him. It would be like asking Mr. Wells to write perfect prose every day of his life. You could go crazy trying. And it's not possible anyway. So maybe it's better to go make shoes in Italy.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on all things!
Samuel
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
From: Sam Hallgren
To: Adam Kempenaar
Subject: 13 Conversations about 4 Movies
My reaction to the news that you were going to see "The Hours" last night: curiosity, mixed with the mild pull of duty. I had no plans myself. I almost called and asked if I could tag along or at least offer to see the film on my own so we could share fresh views. But the closer it got to quittin' time, the less I felt I had the energy to go through with it. And I want to see "The Hours." I'm curious. I didn't like the book, which had come recommended; but not long after I finished it I saw that they were making it into a film and especially when I saw the cast, I was immediately interested in seeing it. As I recall, the whole structure of the book seemed forced and kind of pretentious. Maybe I was intrigued by the poetic detail of the book, and I wondered how that would translate to the screen. Anyway, I think it's the kind of film I'd rather see on a rainy Saturday afternoon. Or in the comfort of my own home.
So instead of going to "The Hours," I went straight home after work, with the intention of pounding out my CinemaScoped post. I knew that it would take me a while to articulate (and to recall) my responses to the four year-end films I've seen since Christmas. I started writing. Didn't like how it was going. Got tempted by Netflix's latest shipment: "Lovely and Amazing." I had only rented "Lovely and Amazing" because it was being mentioned in some year-end-best conversations -- for the film itself and for Catherine Keener's performance. Writer/director Nicole Holofcener's film, a rambling examination of a few tumultuous days in the lives of three women (Keener, Emily Mortimer, and Brenda Blethyn), is the worst film I have seen all year. A terribly-directed, dramatically stagnant mess. It is beyond my comprehension what redeeming value anyone could see in this film. Keener gives a noxious variation on her caustic oddball character (as seen in "Being John Malkovich," "Out of Sight" and "Full Frontal") that actually made me cringe. Honestly, it's the worst and most misguided performance by an actor I have seen in a long, long time. The critical success of this film (84% fresh on the Tomatometer) and it's equally bad indie counterpart "13 Conversations About One Thing" (86%) -- really bewilders me. The films have been praised for their emotional directness and their honesty. Both scripts suffered from a terminal lack of subtext, and an annoying tendency to have their characters psychologically evaluate each other. I really didn't want to go on so long about this film. I want the whole experience erased from my memory. I do want to note the performance of child actor Raven Goodwin, who plays Brenda Blethyn's adopted 8-year-old daughter. I wish I could describe the sight of this child actor out-performing everyone else in the film. It is an incredibly naturalistic performance. Just hope that she lands some more roles. Please avoid "Lovely and Amazing" at all costs.
Apropos of nothing. Actresses everyone seems to like but me: Catherine Keener and Julianne Moore.
"Adaptation." I gather you didn't like it. It was almost my favorite movie of the year. Among the things I loved about it: that even though Kaufman didn't trust his adaptation of "The Orchid Thief," the stuff that we see from his adaptation (the scenes with Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper) suggests a movie that I wish I could see. And I would have resented this -- and, if I'm honest with myself, I'll admit that I did resent it a little bit -- if Nicolas Cage hadn't been so incredible and Kaufman's "self-flagellating" (your description) script wasn't so inventive and funny and Jonze's direction wasn't so detailed and inspiring. Yes, the film has flaws. I think everyone who worked on the film knew that "Adaptation" was flawed and believed it was worth working on anyway. You don't get performances as well articulated as those in "Adaptation" without the cast having complete faith in the enterprise they're taking on. Credit for this has to go to Spike Jonze. There have been arguments that the movie is narcissistic; that it's actually much more traditional than it lets on (was Fosse really being "meta" in "All That Jazz," Adam, or was he doing what Woody Allen does each and every year -- make a film about himself, sometimes casting himself in the lead, sometimes casting Kenneth Branagh or John Cusack or Sean Penn?); and that it's cynical. I really think it's brilliant. And I don't think it's cynical at all. But the ending troubles me. I was literally kept awake nights thinking about the ending. I didn't get it. In the days that followed my Christmas Day viewing of the film, I scoured critical appraisals of the film for insight into the "troublesome third act" (as it was invariably described). Most reviewers either avoided a direct discussion of it or wrote it off as an unfortunate act of hari-kari. Now that I've read several interpretations of the film's ending -- thanks in large part to the discussion on Slate's brilliant movie club -- I'm still unsatisfied. For my part, I kept going back to McKee's advice to Charlie that the ending had to come from "a change in the characters themselves." I took this to mean the Susan Orlean (Streep) and John Laroche (Cooper) characters. But the movie "Adaptation" is about Charlie Kaufman. He experiences his own transformation, and so the characters in his screenplay experience one as well. Still the ending wasn't satisfying for me. As much as I liked -- and, more importantly, believed -- Cage in the dual roles, I didn't experience anything resembling catharsis when Charlie's brother Donald dies and Charlie undergoes a sudden emotional maturity. I just didn't go there. For one thing, I was so disoriented by the last third of the movie, and that it went on as long as it did, that I lost any sense of what was real. This is a major flaw. Also, I'm not sure that Jonze and Kaufman realize, or give enough credit for, how invested the audience gets in the Streep and Cooper characters. But I wonder how it will look under re-examination. Whatever the ending is actually intended to accomplish, I trust that Jonze and Kaufman meant it to be un-cynical. Which is good enough for me. I look forward to seeing it again.
Streep's husband in "Adaptation" is played by "8 Mile" director Curtis Hanson. Why has no one pointed this out? Bizarre.
If Spike Jonze has a gift for finding reality in the absurd, Alexander Payne is just as gifted at finding the absurd that permeates reality. I first heard about "About Schmidt" early last year during the Cannes and Sundance film festivals, or maybe it was even earlier than that. It was probably my most anticipated movie of the year. I loved "Election." I loved Payne's instinct for realistic comic detail and his deadpan style. "About Schmidt" does not disappoint in this vein. It's just as textured and observant as "Election," and just as dark and funny. The problem with the film -- and it's a big one -- is the casting of Jack Nicholson. He's just too big for the part. He overwhelms the film's attention to emotional detail and its tone of desperation. I spent large parts of the film wishing they had cast someone else, maybe Robert Duvall or Paul Newman or Tom Wilkinson. It's not that Nicholson gives a bad performance -- it's actually very restrained and honest; it's just that it's Jack Nicholson-, and it was impossible for me to ever forget that fact. Warren Schmidt is a bitter, pathetic retiree. Jack Nicholson is one of the most naturally charismatic actors of all time. Have you seen "The Last Detail," Adam? Just electric charisma and talent. There's a scene in "About Schmidt" where Schmidt visits his college fraternity. We see Schmidt looking at a wall of photos cataloguing previous generations of frat brothers. The college-age Schmidt we see in the photo is unmistakably Nicholson. Grinning like a cat and up to no good. Would this man end up a retired actuary in Omaha, Nebraska? Maybe. But it takes some serious suspension of disbelief. Still. The movie is great. Not as moving as it would have been with another Schmidt?at least not for me?but still a great film by one of the most my favorite directors working today.
Next. I spent the first 40 minutes of "Gangs of New York" imagining how good the book the film is based on must be. I couldn't have been less involved in the story or the place or any of the characters. But somehow by the end of the movie, some two hours later, I was completely wrapped up in it. Despite its messiness and blatant theatricality (which starts a vice and ends a virtue), "Gangs" is one of my favorite movies of the year. I don't remember the last time I left a movie feeling so overwhelmed and fulfilled -- probably not since the first "Lord of the Rings." And as with "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring," "Gangs" succeeds in large part thanks to the performance of a "supporting" actor. In the first "Rings," Ian McKellen gave Middle Earth a sense of reality and place that kept the story firmly rooted in the familiar (something sorely lacking in "The Two Towers"). In "Gangs," Daniel Day-Lewis gives one of the most exciting performances I have ever seen in my life. His Bill the Butcher dominates the movie, and, like McKellen, defines the movie as well. To call these "supporting" roles is a serious understatement. Everything about "Gangs" is stagey and theatrical. The sets, the costumes, the performances. But if they are stagey, they are epically stagey; and it is the movie's scope that won me over. I liken those first 40 minutes to the suspension of disbelief that any playgoer must employ to accept a stage reality. Sometimes it takes until intermission for the reality of the play to take hold. Once "Gangs" really gets going, which pretty much coincides with Lewis's re-emergence as Bill the Butcher/King of the Five Points, I was swept away. When the credits finally rolled and U2 came blaring through the speakers, I felt like I'd been run over by a tank. I couldn't move. I had one of those rare movie experiences where my sense of awe became a physical sensation. For that alone, it should be my favorite movie of the year; but it's not (more on this when we reveal our top films of the year). The performances in "Gangs" are good across the board. DiCaprio seems to be getting some flak, but I liked him. He occasionally slips into 21st century naturalism, but this is Scorsese's fault as much as DiCaprio's. And Cameron Diaz is very good as well, especially as the movie goes on. Somehow Diaz has become a very reliable dramatic actress. I'm not sure how this happened. She won't get nominated, but she should. And if it were up to me, DiCaprio would get a nomination as well as best supporting actor. The only lead actor in the film is Day-Lewis. And his performance is worth the price of admission. If you haven't seen it yet, Adam, see it in the theatre. Don't risk missing the sheer size of this movie. There's a lot more I liked and didn't like about the movie; but let's discuss that once you've seen it.
Lastly, and briefly, "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers." As I've said, I liked the first one a lot. This one lost me. I was reminded of the fact that I generally don't like, and find it difficult to suspend my disbelief for, fantasy films. There wasn't enough McKellen, and I kept forgetting what the point of the whole mission was. I had too many questions. And yet the film is beautiful and a real joy to watch -- to look at, rather. Gollum is a fascinating character and a CGI miracle. I just never got caught up in the momentum of the story, which was taken a bit for granted while we were introduced to new characters, new beasties, exposed to new parts of Middle Earth, etc. It is an amazing achievement, and I'm willing to bet that the third installment will win me over again. Again, we can discuss this further when you see it.
If you haven't seen it, check out Jeffrey Wells' "Hollywood Elsewhere" column (posted today) about Daniel Day-Lewis. It's bizarre. He seems to be criticizing Lewis for choosing not to act because he doesn't find fulfillment in it. For comparison, he invokes all the hardworking stiffs out there who may not like their jobs, but who do them anyway. I'd love to see Lewis in more films myself, but if the guy doesn't want to act, leave him alone. Acting is not like other jobs. It's more like a drug habit than a job. For many professional actors, the job is frequently unfulfilling, particularly, it seems, for those we consider our very best actors (Anthony Hopkins threatens to quit the business after every other film he makes); at the end of the day, you're pretending to be someone else. And if you have exacting standards of how to achieve this magic act (of becoming someone else), you can become more and more convinced that it just isn't possible. And the effort can be physically and mentally exhausting. Many actors find peace with the profession before burning themselves out (please see the still very watchable Robert De Niro for a great example; Al Pacino is alternately phoning it in and killing himself with effort -- also, he took five years off in the 80s due to burnout). Lewis is a gifted actor; he seems born to do it. But he can't go halfway. It's all or nothing with him. It would be like asking Mr. Wells to write perfect prose every day of his life. You could go crazy trying. And it's not possible anyway. So maybe it's better to go make shoes in Italy.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on all things!
Samuel
Tuesday, January 07, 2003
RANDOM MUSINGS - Cross 'Catch Me If You Can' of my list of movies I have to see before making my best of the year list. I caught it last night and all I will say for now is that I think Ebert put the wrong Spielberg movie at the top of his list. As mentioned previously, I'll be seeing 'The Hours' tonight. That leaves 'Gangs of New York,' 'About Schmidt,' 'The Pianist,' '25th Hour' (opens Friday) and 'Talk To Her.' Movies I'd like to fit in but probably won't have time: 'The Two Towers,' 'Personal Velocity,' and 'Y Tu Mama Tambien (on DVD). My movie club mate Sam Hallgren and I will unveil our individual top ten lists next Monday to much fanfare and discussion. Eric Baker may make an appearance, but considering that 1) I have no idea where he is and 2) He has been out of the country for the past few weeks, thus missing the brunt of the year's most promising releases, he may be even more clueless than usual. Just kidding, Bakes.
In yesterday's Movie Club over at Slate, David Edelstein mentioned some email he received regarding the ending of 'Minority Report': "Let me close (finally) with Harvey Cormier of the Philosophy Department at Stony Brook. He makes that case (I first heard this over the summer) that Minority Report is not, as I've asserted, 7/8 of a great movie but 8/8 of one: that the final 20 minutes represents the dream of Tom Cruise's character while in stasis". I bring this up for no better reason than to point out that I espoused this same theory back on 7/31 and just like Edelstein, I don't buy it. Obviously, I agree that there is room for that interpretation, which is why I put it forward, but I don't believe that Spielberg intended the ending of 'Minority Report' to be read as a dream. I wish he had. It certainly would have made the movie better than it ultimately was.
My 'Chicago' review sparked a little discussion in the message boards, including Nate's bold claim that 'Chicago' is the best film of the year so far. If he loves musicals as much he says he does, I sure hope he has seen 'All That Jazz,' Bob Fosse's autobiographical tale of life as a selfish, womanizing artist with Roy Scheider as his alter-ego Joe Gideon. Charlie Kauffman may be all the post-modern rage these days, but Fosse was the king of all meta-ness before Kauffman had been to his bar mitzvah. The only difference between 'All That Jazz' and 'Adaptation' is that Fosse didn't play himself as Bob Fosse, or have Scheider play a character named "Bob Fosse." Oh, and the fact that Fosse had something interesting to say beyond self-flagellation. Frankly, this movie easily could have made my list of the Best Films of the Past 25 Years. Speaking of which... check back tomorrow!
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
In yesterday's Movie Club over at Slate, David Edelstein mentioned some email he received regarding the ending of 'Minority Report': "Let me close (finally) with Harvey Cormier of the Philosophy Department at Stony Brook. He makes that case (I first heard this over the summer) that Minority Report is not, as I've asserted, 7/8 of a great movie but 8/8 of one: that the final 20 minutes represents the dream of Tom Cruise's character while in stasis". I bring this up for no better reason than to point out that I espoused this same theory back on 7/31 and just like Edelstein, I don't buy it. Obviously, I agree that there is room for that interpretation, which is why I put it forward, but I don't believe that Spielberg intended the ending of 'Minority Report' to be read as a dream. I wish he had. It certainly would have made the movie better than it ultimately was.
My 'Chicago' review sparked a little discussion in the message boards, including Nate's bold claim that 'Chicago' is the best film of the year so far. If he loves musicals as much he says he does, I sure hope he has seen 'All That Jazz,' Bob Fosse's autobiographical tale of life as a selfish, womanizing artist with Roy Scheider as his alter-ego Joe Gideon. Charlie Kauffman may be all the post-modern rage these days, but Fosse was the king of all meta-ness before Kauffman had been to his bar mitzvah. The only difference between 'All That Jazz' and 'Adaptation' is that Fosse didn't play himself as Bob Fosse, or have Scheider play a character named "Bob Fosse." Oh, and the fact that Fosse had something interesting to say beyond self-flagellation. Frankly, this movie easily could have made my list of the Best Films of the Past 25 Years. Speaking of which... check back tomorrow!
Monday, January 06, 2003
A.O. SCOTT STOLE MY THUNDER - Here I was all set to announce my revelation to the world, and A.O. Scott goes and beats me to it": the best performance in 'Chicago,' the movie version of the popular Bob Fosse musical, isn't turned in by Catherine Zeta-Jones or Renee Zellweger, or even supporting scene-stealers Queen Latifah and John C. Reilly -- it's Richard Gere. An actor I haven't enjoyed watching in a movie since 'An Officer And A Gentleman,' Gere is fabulous as the fast-talking lawyer Billy Flynn -- and not because of his singing and dancing skills, although he acquits himself amiably. Rather, he is the only performer who actually shows that he can act, delivering a performance just showy enough for a Broadway bonanza while employing the same "naturalistic conventions of screen drama," as Scott puts it, to transcend mere showmanship. Actually, I'm not sure that I really appropriated Scott's remarks correctly at all, but that's why he reviews movies for the New York Times and I review movies for the seven people reading this right now. The audience I saw 'Chicago' with last weekend -- though, admittedly, mostly older women -- cooed and giggled at Gere's every line. Sure, part of this is due to his general hunkiness, but also because he earns every one of those affectionate responses with his charm. I was genuinely surprised by how much I enjoyed his performance, especially when he was the actor I was most concerned about. Casting Gere as a sleazy lawyer always seemed like uninspired casting to me because it was just too obvious. As for the general criticisms of 'Chicago' -- that Zeta-Jones can't dance, Zellweger can't sing and the music isn't really that great to begin with -- I'll happily admit to ignorance when it comes to the criteria of what a good musical should be and simply say that I enjoyed the hell out of the movie. I found the music to be generally catchy (most are tunes you've heard a million times without knowing where they came from) and director Rob Marshall, who also choreographed the film, is smart enough to keep Zeta-Jones' movements to a minimum while Zellweger seems to have a delightful voice that actually compensates for an overall performance as Roxie Hart that is just slightly overdone. She's always "performing," playing a character who is clearly in a musical, unlike Gere's Flynn who could be transplanted to a "regular" film if he could only lose his nasty habit of bursting into song. I don't expect to find 'Chicago' anywhere on my best of the year list (more on that in a shortly), but it won me over, especially the way Marshall intercuts the musical and non-musical bits without having it seem cumbersome or confusing. The Brechtian device of having each song performed for an audience on a stage, separate from the "other" movie world being portrayed, with Taye Diggs as a sort of host who calls out each number, is smart and effective.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Friday, January 03, 2003
BOOKS ON FILM, MUSIC DOCS AND NEW DVDs - Back in August I dropped close to $100 on a membership to Cinema/Chicago because it promised discounts to the Chicago International Film Fest and free passes to special screenings -- and because you can really never have enough forms of ID. Well, the discounts at the Film Fest were good for all the movies except the ones I most wanted to see, and I've received zero invitations to special screenings... until yesterday, that is. Next Tuesday (1/7), I'll be attending a free viewing of 'The Hours', the Nicole Kidman/Meryl Streep/Julianne Moore battle for best actress based on Michael Cunningham's Pulitzer-Prize winning novel. Cunningham will be present for a post-screening discussion of the film, which should be interesting. I actually purchased the book over the holidays along with David Benioff's 'The 25th Hour,' which was the basis for Spike Lee's latest minus the "The." I'm torn right now because I'm 40 pages into 'The 25th Hour' and enjoying it, but debating whether I should commit to finishing the book before I see the movie, or just stopping now and finishing it after the film. As a general rule, if I'm going to read a book that has been made into a film, I like to read the book first since it was created first. The film is an interpretation of the book, so why not see exactly how it was interpreted -- it's a cause-and-effect sort of thing, if any of this makes any sense at all. At the same time, reading the book first can bias you toward the film if it leaves out favorite scenes, characters or subplots, in addition to ruining surprises and/or defusing suspense. I finished Chuck Pahlaniuk's 'Fight Club' about a week before seeing the movie, which meant Ed Norton's identity revelation near the end wasn't a revelation to me at all. It did shock the hell out of me reading the book, though, so I suppose I didn't really have anything spoiled for me. Coincidentally, of course, Ed Norton is also the star of '25th Hour.' * Speaking of artist appearances and the Chicago Film Fest, I never followed through on my promise to write about two music documentaries that I viewed back in September -- 'Only The Strong Survive' and 'Tribute' -- so I'll say something briefly about both now. The best part about seeing 'Survive,' a film about the great R&B and soul stars such as Sam and Dave, Wilson Pickett, and various Staxx recording artists who were big in the '50s through the '70s, is that director and documentary legend D.A. Pennebaker ('Don't Look Back') was at the screening and stuck around afterward for an audience Q&A. Pennebaker was joined by his partner/wife and co-director Chris Hegedus, one of the co-directors of last year's great 'Startup.com', and entertainment writer Roger Friedman who "stars" in the movie as he embarks on a journey to seek out his favorite performers. I enjoyed the film because I know very little about these artists and their music is great, but I think it actually would have been better served had the filmmakers stuck with the personal journey conceit. Friedman more or less disappears about 30 minutes in and the film basically becomes your grandfather's documentary. In addition, neither Pennebaker nor Friedman really probe into the lives of their subjects, settling instead for extended performance scenes comprised of copious closeups. Pennebaker addressed this concern in the post-Q&A when he said that he didn't realize he was using so many closeups until he saw the footage; while he was shooting, he was just so caught up in the revelrie of being close to these performers and their music that he kept creeping in. No documentarian is ever truly objective about their subjects, but Pennebaker and co. were maybe just a little too adoring. In contrast, the documentary 'Tribute,' about bands who devote themselves to copying their idols to sometimes ridiculous lengths, was occasionally too patronizing of its subjects -- not that these people don't deserve a little prodding. You simply can't beat watching a 40-year-old guy with a gut being forcibly put into his leather Gene Simmons garb. Or what about the 20-something dork from L.A. who is so delusional about the band Queen that while sitting outside Freddie Mercury's old L.A. home he notices a skywriter paying tribute to Princess Diana and without hesitation makes the connection that Freddie Mercury is sending him a sign -- Freddie is talking to him, showing his love for all humanity, through this skywriter? He's so emotional he almost breaks down in tears. I'm not kidding. The unintentional comedy is off the charts, which is also the movie's downfall. The movie focuses on bands paying tribute to Kiss, Queen, Judas Priest and the Monkees, and at times seems to be enjoying a little too much just how fanatical these people are in trying to emulate their heroes. It's the kind of situation where all of the people in the doc probably thought it was great to have the filmmakers around and then when they saw the final product felt betrayed because they were made to look like fools. * Hopefully you got some gift certificates for X-mas or have some extra holiday cash laying around because January is a great month for us DVD collectors. M. Night Shyamalan's 'Signs,' comes out next Tuesday (1/7) with director's commentary and deleted scenes. Not a fashionable movie to like, at least in film snob circles, but I've yet to be disappointed by Shyamalan's work. Also on the 7th is Migual Arteta's 'The Good Girl,' a film Sam and I were both ultimately disappointed with -- read our remarks from 8/27 here -- but found a number of parts to contain arguably the funniest dialogue of the year. Plus, the disc is loaded with a commentary by screenwriter and co-star Mike White, an alternate ending, director and cast commentary and deleted scenes. 'About a Boy' comes out on Jan. 14 with deleted scenes and commentary by the Weitz brothers. Then on Jan. 21 we get the collector's edition of 'The Bourne Identity' complete with cast commentary, Doug Liman commentary, deleted scenes and an alternate ending with Liman's commentary.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Thursday, January 02, 2003
THE MOST WONDERFUL TIME OF THE YEAR - Three movies. That's all I could manage to squeeze in this holiday season -- 'Adaptation,' 'Antwone Fisher,' and the original 'Planet of the Apes,' which I finally saw from start to finish on DVD. I plan to write about all three movies this week, while hopefully engaging my colleague Sam Hallgren who saw 'Adaptation', among others, and reacted a bit more favorably than I did. But before I get to those movies, and to the CS list of the top ten films since 1978, I have to take some time to plug the 5th Annual Movie Club going on over at Slate with David Edelstein, Roger Ebert, Sarah Kerr (Vogue) and A.O. Scott (NY Times). The critics are sharing their top ten lists and other assorted observations on the year in movies. Edelstein reads this blog on occasion and I'm hoping that if I suck up enough he might invite me to partake in a Movie Club in the future. I can't imagine anything cooler than being able to call A.O. Scott "Tony." But seriously, these folks are all, sadly, out of my league, which you can see for yourself by clicking here. If you have a lot of free time and self-control, I also recommend checking out the vitriolic responses the Movie Club provokes in "The Fray." Since I don't have a lot of free time and even less self-control, I just avoid "The Fray" completely now. Two years ago I entered a few debates and it consumed almost a week of my life. I guarantee there are people in there now complaining about how they've never even heard of most of the movies these critics are discussing, and how if a critic says a movie is good it must mean it sucks, etc... really enlightening stuff. Anyway, here are a few random observations on the entries so far: * Edelstein puts 'Gangs of New York' at #11 on his list with an asterisk -- like Nigel Tufnel's amp, Edelstein's list goes to 11 -- explaining: "The asterisk means I'm hedging my bets pending a look (I hope someday) at Martin Scorsese's preferred three-and-a-half hour cut." What's curious about this is that I saw Scorsese talking about 'Gangs' a few weeks ago on either Conan O'Brien or Inside the Actor's Studio -- how's that for opposite ends of the cultural spectrum? -- and I'm sure I recall him saying that there will be no "director's cut" of the movie, that what you see in the theater is his preferred length. He admitted to some back-and-forth with Harvey Weinstein but said that he wasn't forced to chop his movie up. So, either Scorsese was just playing the good soldier while promoting his movie, or Edelstein's asterisk will be there for awhile. Speaking of chopped up movies and Miramax, I can't think of another movie more bastardized by length considerations than Billy Bob Thornton's 'All The Pretty Horses.' Luscious landscapes and cinematography, Matt Damon's best performance... all for nothing. It takes Thornton almost 90 minutes to get to the plot, which I loved, but Weinstein clearly did not. Thornton's first cut was reportedly almost four hours long and at one point he considered taking his name off the final version. He should have. Watching Damon's character fall in love and then in the next scene get framed and shipped off to jail was laughable and ruined what I think could have been a truly magnificent film. * Roger Ebert puts 'Minority Report' as the #1 movie of 2002. There's been some talk on this blog about Ebert's credibility and this choice certainly seems a dubious one. Edelstein is absolutely correct when he praises "seven-eighths of Minority Report" calling it "a blast until its flat final act." I think "flat" is probably too kind, as I discussed here on 7/31. No movie with an ending that flawed belongs atop any 'best of' list. * After 'Minority Report,' the biggest surprise has to be A.O. Scott's placement of 'Storytelling' at #7. I haven't seen it on any other top ten lists and I know it won't crack mine. Some of the dialogue in the "Fiction" sequence was hilarious, but it was the first time I agreed with all of the Solondz detractors that he seemed to be taking some sort of perverse pleasure in showcasing the vulgarities of his characters. 'Happiness' wasn't much different, but the tone was more consistently ironic and humorous as opposed to angry and condescending.
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
UPDATE - New Year's Resolution #1 - Stop making promises about when you will blog. Resolution #2 - Be a more consistent blogger.
Sorry, I'm swamped at work...but I've got plenty to say and will do so this afternoon. Wait, was that just a promise?
COMING SOON - Movie blogging will occur before noon today!
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Sorry, I'm swamped at work...but I've got plenty to say and will do so this afternoon. Wait, was that just a promise?
COMING SOON - Movie blogging will occur before noon today!
Monday, December 30, 2002
SAM GOES LIST CRAZY - Let me digress for a moment before I get to the CinemaScoped 10 films/25 years list... I don’t love Martin Scorsese. I don’t love his movies. There. I said it. I admire him. I recognize and appreciate his influence. But he’s not my favorite. Not by a long shot. There’s something about Scorsese’s films I just don’t enjoy. The urban crime dramas are gritty, sadistically playful, artistically shot and solemn as hell. “Mean Streets,” “Taxi Driver,” “Raging Bull,” “Goodfellas,” “Casino,” and “Bringing out the Dead” are all good films (OK, “Bringing out the Dead” is not good, but it fits the type), but none of them give me the emotional or visceral thrill that my favorite films do. And if I fail to mention a film during this discussion, it means I haven’t seen it. Scorsese’s other forays into filmmaking -- those outside of the underbelly-of-America genre (“Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore,” “Cape Fear,” “Age of Innocence,” “Kundun”) -- have interested me even less. My favorite Scorsese film? “After Hours.” Because it’s fun and funny and loose and improvisational. Is “After Hours” a better film than “Raging Bull?” No. “Raging Bull” -- and “Taxi Driver” and “Goodfellas” -- are masterpieces of cinematography, editing and characterization. But if you asked me to pick a Scorsese film to watch right now, I’d pick “After Hours.” I am not going to make the argument that Scorsese is overrated. I don’t think that’s true. I’m just sharing my opinion. I’m saying it’s OK to love movies and not love Scorsese.
Which brings me to the CinemaScoped list -- a list-by-committee that reveals the faults of such a list. To create a list of the best films of the last 25 years is presumptuous, futile, and impossible. It’s also a hell of a lot of fun. And it’s a great way to start a conversation. I picked on Martin Scorsese at the top of my post because I hate the fact that two of his films are on the CS list. And the fact is I put “Raging Bull” in my own top ten, but more out of reflex than anything else. Putting “Raging Bull” on the list, in my opinion, is an unconscious genuflection to a previous generation of cineastes. Or maybe I’m just bored with the obvious. Here are my three favorite picks on the CS list, all of which appeared on my own list: “Apocalypse Now.” I saw it when I was 15 and it fucked me up. It was chaotic and scary; but it had an emotional logic that -- if I didn’t entirely understand it -- I believed it. I’ve seen it repeatedly since and it still gets me. The film over-extends and implodes; but its desperation is exhilarating. It feels like the last movie ever made. “Hannah and Her Sisters.” OK, so Woody Allen hasn’t made a great movie in a decade and it’s getting harder to remember what everyone loves about this guy. Go rent this movie. Or “Manhattan” or “Crimes and Misdemeanors” or “Husbands and Wives” -- or even “Manhattan Murder Mystery.” Great writing. Great, great acting. Woody Allen is a great observer of human anxiety. He’s funny, honest, and smart. When he’s on, there is just no one better. “Rushmore.” With “Bottle Rocket” (probably my favorite film of all-time) Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson introduced me to something new in film: sincerity of the absurd. “Rushmore” uses the same formula to an even more specific and creative end. (“The Royal Tennenbaums” pushed the formula past the breaking point, and I found the film indulgent; but I have hope for future projects). For my money, I think Anderson and Wilson have the most original voice currently working in American movies. My favorite thing about “Rushmore” is its emotional honesty in the face of absurdity -- and it’s refusal to cheapen itself with cynicism. I also want to comment on the surprising appearance of “Henry V” on the CS list. This is probably the best example of the consequences of making a list by committee. I love “Henry V,” and I think anyone who has seen it can agree that it’s a well-staged and well-acted film -- definitely the best (literal) Shakespeare adaptation of the past 25 years. And what a great script! But not an influential or a landmark film. And it makes the list because Adam, Eric, and I can’t agree on another auteur to recognize: if one of us loves David Lynch or Paul Thomas Anderson or the Farrelly brothers, the other two can’t stand them; or if one of us loves “In the Mood for Love” or “Yi Yi,” the other two haven’t seen it. And so it goes. So no Oliver Stone, no Robert Altman, no Coen brothers, no Terry Gilliam, and no Jim Jarmusch. And what about “Glengarry Glen Ross?” If you’re of a certain age, this film belongs on a list all by itself. I’ve spent more time with this movie, with these characters, than I have with any other movie. It’s about salesmen. Nothing really happens. All they do is talk. Well, this is the kind of dialogue that every screenwriter wishes he could write. Funny, sharp, and destructive. And read by some of the best actors in the land. This film is just a flawless, endlessly-entertaining gem -- particularly for film and theater geeks like myself. Is it a “great” film? No. It’s the best film. Period.
Now. Here’s another list of films -- more along the lines of the type of lists that have appeared in the Feedback Forum. This is a list of my favorite movies of the past 25 years; the films that remind me why I love movies. It’s telling that the bulk of these films are from the mid-to-late 90s: these movies served as my film education. It may also help to think of these as my “desert island” movies.
Bottle Rocket/Rushmore (Wes Anderson, 1996-1999)
Mystery Train/Dead Man/Ghost Dog (Jim Jarmusch, 1989-1999)
Unforgiven (Clint Eastwood, 1992)
Midnight Run (Martin Brest, 1988)
Flirting With Disaster (David O. Russell, 1996)
The Insider (Michael Mann, 1999)
32 Short Films About Glenn Gould (Francois Girard, 1994)
Wonder Boys (Curtis Hanson, 2000)
Big Night/The Imposters (Campbell Scott/Stanley Tucci, 1996-1998)
Out of Sight/The Limey (Steven Soderbergh, 1998-1999)
The Matrix (Wachowski Brothers, 1999)
Glengarry Glen Ross (James Foley, 1992)
Hannah and Her Sisters/Husbands and Wives (Woody Allen, 1986-1992)
E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Which brings me to the CinemaScoped list -- a list-by-committee that reveals the faults of such a list. To create a list of the best films of the last 25 years is presumptuous, futile, and impossible. It’s also a hell of a lot of fun. And it’s a great way to start a conversation. I picked on Martin Scorsese at the top of my post because I hate the fact that two of his films are on the CS list. And the fact is I put “Raging Bull” in my own top ten, but more out of reflex than anything else. Putting “Raging Bull” on the list, in my opinion, is an unconscious genuflection to a previous generation of cineastes. Or maybe I’m just bored with the obvious. Here are my three favorite picks on the CS list, all of which appeared on my own list: “Apocalypse Now.” I saw it when I was 15 and it fucked me up. It was chaotic and scary; but it had an emotional logic that -- if I didn’t entirely understand it -- I believed it. I’ve seen it repeatedly since and it still gets me. The film over-extends and implodes; but its desperation is exhilarating. It feels like the last movie ever made. “Hannah and Her Sisters.” OK, so Woody Allen hasn’t made a great movie in a decade and it’s getting harder to remember what everyone loves about this guy. Go rent this movie. Or “Manhattan” or “Crimes and Misdemeanors” or “Husbands and Wives” -- or even “Manhattan Murder Mystery.” Great writing. Great, great acting. Woody Allen is a great observer of human anxiety. He’s funny, honest, and smart. When he’s on, there is just no one better. “Rushmore.” With “Bottle Rocket” (probably my favorite film of all-time) Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson introduced me to something new in film: sincerity of the absurd. “Rushmore” uses the same formula to an even more specific and creative end. (“The Royal Tennenbaums” pushed the formula past the breaking point, and I found the film indulgent; but I have hope for future projects). For my money, I think Anderson and Wilson have the most original voice currently working in American movies. My favorite thing about “Rushmore” is its emotional honesty in the face of absurdity -- and it’s refusal to cheapen itself with cynicism. I also want to comment on the surprising appearance of “Henry V” on the CS list. This is probably the best example of the consequences of making a list by committee. I love “Henry V,” and I think anyone who has seen it can agree that it’s a well-staged and well-acted film -- definitely the best (literal) Shakespeare adaptation of the past 25 years. And what a great script! But not an influential or a landmark film. And it makes the list because Adam, Eric, and I can’t agree on another auteur to recognize: if one of us loves David Lynch or Paul Thomas Anderson or the Farrelly brothers, the other two can’t stand them; or if one of us loves “In the Mood for Love” or “Yi Yi,” the other two haven’t seen it. And so it goes. So no Oliver Stone, no Robert Altman, no Coen brothers, no Terry Gilliam, and no Jim Jarmusch. And what about “Glengarry Glen Ross?” If you’re of a certain age, this film belongs on a list all by itself. I’ve spent more time with this movie, with these characters, than I have with any other movie. It’s about salesmen. Nothing really happens. All they do is talk. Well, this is the kind of dialogue that every screenwriter wishes he could write. Funny, sharp, and destructive. And read by some of the best actors in the land. This film is just a flawless, endlessly-entertaining gem -- particularly for film and theater geeks like myself. Is it a “great” film? No. It’s the best film. Period.
Now. Here’s another list of films -- more along the lines of the type of lists that have appeared in the Feedback Forum. This is a list of my favorite movies of the past 25 years; the films that remind me why I love movies. It’s telling that the bulk of these films are from the mid-to-late 90s: these movies served as my film education. It may also help to think of these as my “desert island” movies.
Bottle Rocket/Rushmore (Wes Anderson, 1996-1999)
Mystery Train/Dead Man/Ghost Dog (Jim Jarmusch, 1989-1999)
Unforgiven (Clint Eastwood, 1992)
Midnight Run (Martin Brest, 1988)
Flirting With Disaster (David O. Russell, 1996)
The Insider (Michael Mann, 1999)
32 Short Films About Glenn Gould (Francois Girard, 1994)
Wonder Boys (Curtis Hanson, 2000)
Big Night/The Imposters (Campbell Scott/Stanley Tucci, 1996-1998)
Out of Sight/The Limey (Steven Soderbergh, 1998-1999)
The Matrix (Wachowski Brothers, 1999)
Glengarry Glen Ross (James Foley, 1992)
Hannah and Her Sisters/Husbands and Wives (Woody Allen, 1986-1992)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)