“I don’t want to be a personality”

I’ve never liked Richard Gere as an actor. He’s shown up in a number of films that I like, a few that I sort of love even, but he always comes off as a bit inconsequential and I never end up remembering him foremost for any film he’s been in. Looking over his résumé last night, though, I was surprised to notice just how many brilliant actresses the man has worked with. There was a running gag these past few months where a few bloggers were commenting on how odd it was that the unremarkable John C. Reilly was being cinematically married to all these beautiful women – but, at least Reilly is a talented actor.
   
For all his blandness, though, Gere seems to be a good-luck charm. What do Debra Winger, Julia Roberts, Renee Zellweger and Diane Lane have in common? They all earned Best Actress nominations starring opposite him. It’s probably a bit awful of me to celebrate the good women who’ve starred opposite him on his birthday, but I find him so boring. I’ve loved films he’s been in, but I’ve never actually loved him. He says that he doesn’t want to be a personality, and I suppose he succeeds. He doesn’t really seem to have one.

“That’s your big move?”

Crazy, Stupid, Love.: directed by Glenn Ficarra and John Requa; written by Dan Fogelman

There’s a climatic in Crazy, Stupid, Love when all the major characters end up in a showdown of sorts. It depends on two gags – the first an awkward, and vaguely uncomfortable, attempt at a teenage girl attempting a seduction and the second on a revelation that shifts the relationship between two of the characters. It’s the point in the movie when my sister, who I watched it with, turns to me and says, “This movie is ridiculous”. And, even amidst the well intended charm the film hopes to evoke I couldn’t help but agree with her.

The first shot of the film is quite telling taking into account what ends up being one of the main conceits of the film. A couple, Cal and Emily, is at a restaurant and before we see them we see their feet. The lady is in elegant heels, the man in clunky sneakers. They’re getting a divorce, and as we subsequently move through the typical expository dialogue to establish the how and the why, I keep on wondering what that first shot of the feet was about. We switch characters a few minutes into the movie when we switch to a bar where the suave Jacob is attempting to pick up a generally uninterested Hannah. There’s a slow-motion close-up of his very slick shoes as he walks over to her. When a chance meeting puts Cal and Jacob together and the lothario begins helping the schmuck the shoes are what he begins with. Cal’s wife may have cheated on him, but it’s only because he’s become so lazy in his appearance and general attitude. No one wants to be saddled with someone with a lack of zest of life, and even worse no sense of style – it’s time for him to reclaim his manhood, i.e. start looking “good”.

It’s just the beginning of a curious running theme throughout Crazy, Stupid, Love.. There’s a scene in the film where Jacob says that men won the battle of the sexes the moment that women started dancing on a pole for exercise. The statement is less curious for any wit to be found in it, and more the fact that he says it immediately before a scene where he stands naked in a room for no ostensible reason (see photo #1) other than objectification, or...hell, I have no idea. Not that I care to indict the film for questionable morals, but it’s the sort of silliness which pervades it that makes me questions where Fogelman’s head was when he penned this. Emily is excused from her dalliance, and Cal endures a makeover that isn’t necessarily the root of their reconciliation (oh, spoiler alert, they reconcile) but obviously doesn’t hurt it. There’s a sense that he tries to backpedal on this oddness by having Jacob have a turnaround when he meets that “right girl” who probes him to open. He confesses to Cal towards the end that all the while he was trying to turn Cal into him (i.e. Jacob) he was turning into Cal. It’s that ostensible moment where we realise even the most suave of playboys is a warm, cuddly teddy bear underneath. As if.

There’s a striking sense that had the focus been explicitly on one of the two major romances (Ryan/Emma or Steve/Julianne), the latter in particular, we might have had a richer film. The older duo succeed in creating a couple that seems lived-in and yet occasional fresh. Because of the ensemble nature, though, they’re forced to ensure that everyone gets roped into the hijinks which makes the craziness forced, the silliness thin and the love inauthentic. The cast is game, sure – Julianne and Ryan are the best-in-show – and it’s so sincere in the way it closes (well, it tries hard to be) I feel like an irate parent for chiding it. Still, for all its sincerity, the ultimate denouement plays out as especially low-stakes building up a rise that never occurs.
    
C
                 
(Really, though, the big reveal about a certain someone’s praternity is especially limp. Not only would it have been a random inclusion of a certain if it were not so, the hair was dead giveaway. I’m actually a bit surprised that Jacob didn’t end up being the son of David Linderhagen. They seemed like doppelgangers in some scenes. )

“You’re in love with a fantasy”

Midnight in Paris: directed and written by Woody Allen
         
The novel, The Paris Wife opens with the effective quote “Though I often looked for one, I finally had to admit that there could be no cure for Paris.” Owen Wilson’s Gil is suffering from the same infatuation with the city. He – a screenwriter/aspiring author – and his fiancée, Inez, are in Paris for a pre-wedding vacation as he tries to work on his first novel, set to be a romantic ode to the Golden Age of the city – the roaring twenties. That fanciful appreciation for the city is not reflected in Inez and the constant appearance of her cold parents and her snooty friends keep interrupting Gil’s attempts to luxuriate in the city’s beauty. It’s in the loneliness of the night that he gets a chance to savour the Paris he wishes to know and on a midnight stroll he happens upon an antique car which takes him where his heart desires...

             

There’s something especially light about the film’s entire tone. It’s not the kitschy silliness of Whatever Works nor is it the idiosyncratic romanticism of Vicky Cristina Barcelona. The film’s twenties portion moves along at a mellifluous and sometimes saccharinely sweet pace which I rather believe to be an adept way of Woody suggesting the artistic projection which Gil is susceptible to. The fluidity in the twenties is in stark contrast to the deliberately uneven base which inhabits the film’s contemporary half. The film’s opening is a fine example. It’s an ostensibly picturesque image as the engaged couple embrace – an artistically perfect moments which begins to disintegrate almost immediately (never to be retrieved, not by these two at least) as the two disagree on the smallest of things.

The modern-day cast do a good job of creating that dissonant reality which is not completely awful but which yields a pragmatic sense but at the most innocuous of moments is decidedly without charm. Inez puts it so wonderfully; there is nothing romantic about the rain in Paris. It’s not a throwaway line. We’re moving along in differing centuries and we deduce that there must be some parting of ways when Gil latches on decisively to one of the two and the turning point is a surprisingly low stakes one. It is not Woody’s strongest writing, even though it’s still good, and it depends more on the way that the actors work. If the contemporary actors deliver on being pragmatic, the classic ones are ace at being infallibly alluring. The making of a richer story lure underneath and there’s the persistent feel of their being a roll-call as players pop in and out but Alison Pill, Corey Stoll and Marion Cotillard (the latter, especially) dazzling in a feathery role in particular are excellent. It’s the characters that make any city, as it is the characters that make the film.

              
Since the crux of the story in Midnight in Paris depends on magical occurrences of some sort, it’s a bit difficult to indict it for being outlandish. Yet, Woody seems to subvert what seems to be his ruminations on the artist and his nostalgic yearnings on two separate occasions. When Adriana enters portal to Paris of 1890 it’s a bit jarring and immediately makes the film fall just the tiniest bit limply. Her belief in the splendour of the era works, in theory, and even if the monologue Gil gives which exists as the climax is much too precise the film manages to help itself by making an effective point about artistic yearning. But, later, when Gil’s tail happens upon a medieval Paris – a scene inserted simply for broad laughter – I couldn’t help but find it objectionable.

Gil has spent the entire film with this singular yearning for the city in the twenties. The bizarre occurrence of a journey back to the time – as outlandish as it may be – makes sense and when Adriana does the same it does jolt the narrative but it ultimately works, albeit less adroitly. But, the third doesn’t – at all, especially since it’s the final journey. Before, we could have appreciated that his artistic uniqueness was a part of the reason for the oddness of a time travel portal but that incidental occurrence makes Gil’s journey lose their uniqueness, even though in the grander scheme of things it is something of a minor objection. Midnight in Paris is light, almost bauble like in its delicateness, but it is well made, charmingly shot and scored, lovingly rendered and beautifully acted. Like any fantasy the aftermath leaves us with a faint hint of bitterness, but as far as fantasy goes it’s worthy of love. Even if temporarily.
       
B

Turn on the Gaslight

I came across a review of Murder on the Orient Express a few days ago. The positives of the film have not endured as much as the somewhat infamous Oscar win for Ingrid Bergman. The reviewer noted that Bergman, for all her three Oscars, never won for a performance worthy of note. That right there is a bit of an overestimation because even though Greta Ohlsson is not a multifaceted performance it’s not at all abysmal, neither is her work opposite Yul Brynner in Anastasia. I was particularly incensed by this performance, though, because Ingrid’s first Oscar winning performance is one I consider to be of superlative worth. On her birthday, it’s Paula I turn to immediately when I think of this legendary woman.
        
Incidentally, yesterday was the birthday of her co-star Charles Boyer. I meant to do a min-write-up on him yesterday, but my schedule didn’t allow. In my mind Boyer is an improved version of Clark Gable, and I immediately release how strange a statement it seems. Boyer’s light has hardly endured as well as Gable’s, but I’m not a fan of the latter. Like, with Ingrid, I turn to Gaslight when I think of his talents. The film is about a husband trying to convince his wife she’s going crazy with the help of vaguely menacing gaslight. Boyer has a difficult task in the film. We’re supposed to realise his malevolence, yet all the while believe that Paula wouldn’t find it obvious. And, true, a significant amount of that depends on Bergman’s fine work, but I can think of few actors – classic or contemporary – who could tread the line between charming and evil as well (although, if pushed, I’d cast Jude Law opposite Nicole Kidman). I imagine that Gable, as his wont, would turn charming into unctuous, which is obviously personal viewpoint. Gable’s not without his creditors.

        

Gaslight racked up a total of seven Oscar nods – the win for Ingrid and the art direction and nominations for Boyer, Picture, Lansbury for Supporting Actress, Cinematography and Cukor's directin. As an aside, the film is proof of Cukor’s versatility even if not many care to remember it. The crux of the film rests on the performances of the two leads and Cukor’s work and I sort of hate that it isn’t remembered a bit more. But then, I seem to sort of hate a lot of things. I’d turn on Gaslight to celebrate both Charles and Ingrid’s career. The light in the film might be flickering, but their stars are still burning bright for me.

I found this adorable photo of the two, and Joseph Cotton on line. I have no idea where I got it from (if it's your, feel free to claim) but I love it.
        

Are you secretly as besotted with the pair in Gaslight as I? What would you watch to celebrate them?

“We’re close, but we don’t know what to”

Meek’s Cutoff: directed by Kelly Reichardt; written by John Raymond

Three families are travelling west on the Oregon Trail in the mid 1800s. They’re under the guidance of the brash, rash and potentially racist Meek who has promised a shortcut but seems to have made them all lost and now desperately in need of water and in the midst of this a “wild Indian” appears. Reichardt’s film is a low low key minimalist drama and her attempts to mirror the tedium of the time are obvious. But, I’ve always commented that I feel that cinema is not a medium which bodes well for stringent attempts at replicating the reality. The film’s opening gives us an image of the travellers’ truding through a river. It doesn’t last very long, and yet it seems to go on forever – especially since they seem to be going nowhere. And, really, that beginning tells you everything you need to know about the film.

I find the poster for the film curious, Michelle Williams is poised with a shotgun implying two things I don’t feel the film has – that she is the film’s lead and that there is combat to be had. Reichardt’s feminist ideals are obvious (but not garish) and as the women have conversations which suggest that they know more than their husbands we’re given glimpses of relationships and characters that we probably could have done well to know more of. But, Reichardt seems intent on being as subversive as possible. She has the makings for a richer story, but is devoted to being as minimalist as possible. It’s an effective method of telling history but it’s difficult to be moved or when there is context to put anything into. The lack of any perspective against which to weigh what we see prevents the film from moving beyond beautifully shot and plodding.

I’ve noticed that a number of good people seem to have fallen in love with Meek’s Cutoff but I’m not impressed. There’s something impressive in trying to recount the monotony that marked the lives of the travellers and we’ve all probably had moments where our lives were discernible for some tedium. But, for me, Reichardt seems to forget that movies are not meant to be didactic exercises in recounting history devoid of any sort of artistic panache. It’s beautifully shot, but she’s become so stringent in attempting some semblance of realism that there remains little space for narrative technique to enter. It’s effective as an account of what life back then was like, but there’s much more to yearn for than that and ultimately the tedium of the families crosses over into tedium for this audience member. The concept flirts with something seismic, but Reichardt’s insistence in ignoring her characters prevents us from getting there.

C/C+

TV Week in Review: 21st - 25th August

So, let me just dive into it and recap the last wek in TV.

Breaking Bad: “Cornered”; Season Four, Episode Six [B+/A-]

For me, Breaking Bad is the sort of who which benefits from excellent technical work. Sometimes I’m not on board with the writing, but the directing and editing is always good as it was in this episode. After a robbery on Walt’s Meth the episode is bookended by two significant conversations with Skylar. Anna Gunn continues turning in fine performances even if I feel that the writers are constantly forgetting how much of an asset Skylar is to the show. Meanwhile, Jesse’s stint in “body-guarding” continues as Walt begins to worry about the implications. It seems knowledge isn’t worth much. Even as Walt senses that they’re trying to drive a wedge between he and Jesse he seems unable to prevent it from happening – just like he’s unable from preventing Skylar’s worries, which are logical.
[Writing: B+; Directing: A-]

Entourage: “Motherfucker”; Season Eight, Episode Five [B/B+]
So winding down the final season we’re moving ahead with a number of arcs. It’s such a rarity to see Vince dig into his past at least in any significantly dramatic way. Thus, his potential Vanity Fair interview is an interesting change of pace – even more so because the interviewer doesn’t seem all that charmed by him. Even though in the literal sense Drama is moving backwards in deciding to strike, it’s a nice development to see him trying to get Dice on board and doing his utmost to ensure that his venture doesn’t fail. Piven continues to be the kingpin of the series and I’m all for Dana and Ari starting a liaison especially since Mrs. Ari has turned into a bit of a shrew. Still, it was Eric’s liaisons with his ex’s ex-step-mother that was the highlight.
[Writing: B+; Directing: B/B+]

True Blood: “Let's Get Out of Here”; Season Four, Episode Nine [B/B+]

So, things are moving fast and there is a vaguely disjointed way to which it all develops – but it’s forward movement, and I’m all for development. Lafayette’s arc seems a bit divided from the rest, but Ellis delivers a fine performance and I have a feeling that he and Jesus might work the same kind of magic on Martonia soon...we’ll see. Speaking of Martonia, though, she’s now turned on her doubting coven and it seems Tara’s back in the ways of the good. I have to admit I went to a happy place when she helped Sookie get to Bill – if only they could find consistent good use for her, Rutina is being wasted. The werewolves have finally managed to get a real use and as silly as it was I think that Tommy’s heart is in the right place when he goes to them as Sam. I’m curious to see what the fallout from that will be. Although the bigger fallout will be what happens at the “tolerance thing.”
[Writing: B/B+; Directing: B+]

The Closer: “A Family Affair”; Season Seven, Episode Seven [B+]
The episode’s end revealed a troubling reality as it seems that there’s a leak in Brenda’s department which will lead to dastardly things. The return of Captain Raydor is much appreciated and McDonnell and Sedgwick are absolutely brilliant opposite each other. The main case this week with a detective from Phoenix tagging along to see why her estranged daughter was murdered made for an interesting investigation. The revelation itself felt a bit too precise for me to enjoy it, but the actual investigation was filed with strong dramatic arcs and I especially appreciated seeing the finer bits like Brenda interacting with Flynn, Provenza and especially Sanchez. It only points to the mystery of who the leak could be. Will it be as obvious as Taylor...or some surprising?
[Writing: B/B+; Directing: B/B+]

The Big C: “A Little Death”; Season Two, Episode Nine [B+]

It’s the most sombre episode of the season, unsurprisingly since it was a funeral but we still got some lovely moments. The highlight was Cathy and Paul dealing with the funeral of Cathy – the other one. Linney and Platt are such an authentic couple so moments like the ones in the cemetery take on an even more beautiful meaning when they’re together. Rebecca and Sean are both dealing with their issues in their own ways, and I feel especially bad for Rebecca. Her closing conversation with Cathy was especially thought provoking. I’m not quite sold on Parker Posey’s curious character, but I’m all for Basso getting an arc where he isn’t playing a douche.
[Writing: B+; Directing: B+]

Web Therapy: “We've Got A Secret”; Season One, Episode Six [B/B+]
If Fiona wasn’t such an irrepressible, narcissistic psycho I’d feel bad for her – but she isn’t, so I don’t. She gets it from both ends this week – first there’s her mother who’s found her long-lost son and then there’s Kip and his gayness. Kudrow is still doing beautiful, even if the guests didn’t pack as much a punch as I’d have hoped this – except for the continually hilarious Komal. It’s rather curious how despite her naiveté and complete lack of ethics how Fiona still manages to crack her patients and get what she wants – except for her mother of course.....
[Writing: B+; Directing: B]

Damages: “I'm Worried About My Dog”; Season Four, Episode Seven [B+/A-]

Really, I wonder if this is the best season of the show. The brilliant slow burn of this episode is just thrilling to watch and Glenn is in superlative form. But, before we go to Glenn let’s retract to High Star. Messina has returned (cheers and applause) and that conversation with Erikson was most interesting. Goodman is doing a good job of infusing Howard’s generally gregarious temperament with a more sinister undertone that makes him an interesting character. Ellen is sidelined a bit this episode but she has some important bits like meeting with the CIA leak who ends up getting murdered. But, it’s all about Patty. She’s in therapy where we get that lovely reminder of Tom. Then, she’s got Michael to deal with who remains to be a puzzling boy/man. Then, there’s the brilliance of her using her current case to help Ellen’s which results in that great conversation with Gerry. And THAT ENDING! Wow. Just, wow.
[Writing: B+/A-; Directing: B+/A-]

The Hour: “Two”; Season One, Episode Two [B+]
This episode doesn’t fire on all cylinders like the previous one for me, but it’s good one. I’m curious about the murder arc because it seems decidedly secondary to the politics of the work era. Garai holds down this episode moving between her two men. There’s still something off about West, even though his performance is up this episode and we’re seeing a bit more shades of gray in Whishaw’s Freddie, which of course just makes him more fascinating for me. It’s nice to see the ensemble being used as much, and Anna Chancellor still demands my attention each time she appears on screen. I’d love to see her headline a show of her own.
[Writing: B+; Directing: B+/A-]

Wilfred: “Isolation”; Season One, Episode Ten [B+]

This was another solid episode, perhaps even better than last week. I can’t stop singing praises to Wood who is just outstanding as Ryan and it’s nice to see his loner habits being addressed as Wilfred tries to get him out of the house. It leads to a series of hijinks because this is Wilfred we’re talking about but it’s charming how much Ryan fears the public (although that tongue scene was just disgusting) and the ending is pleasing. I’m still curious to know if they’ll address just what the deal is with Ryan and Wilfred but their bond continues to amuse. And, those asides to Bear never get old.
[Writing: B+; Directing B+]

Random Thoughts

• Why is that The Killing is the only AMC show which treats it blonde women well? Both Mad Men’s January Jones and Breaking Bad’s Anna Gunn get the shaft on their shows.
• Hasn’t Cynthia Nixon been just priceless on The Big C? I hope this doesn’t mark her imminent departure.
• How adorable is Luna’s daughter? Not at all annoying like most children on television.

Standout Performers
Glenn Close in Damages B+/A-
Romola Garai in The Hour B+/A-
Elijah Wood in Wilfred B+/A-
Laura Linney in The Big C B+
Ben Whishaw in The Hour B+
    
Nelsan Ellis in True Blood B+
Jason Gann in Wilfred B+
Oliver Platt in The Big C B+
Aaron Paul in Breaking Bad B+
Kyra Sedgwick in The Closer B+
Dylan Baker in Damages B+
         

What did you watch this week?

The Spin-Off 2.4

Wherein I imagine sequels, prequels and spinoffs that Hollywood would never think of, but which are probably better than the ones they do come up with...
    

Michael Gondry’s Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is still oen of the most fascinating film of the last decade and the love for it usually falls on Kate, Gondry and Jim in that order. But, the film is such a thematically rich one that there’s so much to appreciate about it that often seems to get swept under the rug. Even though it’s Joel and Clementine’s story they’re not the ones who refer to the film’s title. It’s Mary, one of the staff of Lacuna who almost sycophantically alludes to it to impress her boss. And, there’s a large volume of back-story that’s only touched. It’s one of the reasons that the film is so impressive, all the characters seem so authentic – and wouldn’t it be lovely to see what really happened with Dr. Mierzwiak and Mary.

 

The thing is, one of the reasons this arc interests me is because of the adorable Mark Ruffalo playing Stan who has a thing for Mary. There’s a bit of a one-two punch in the movie when Mary remembers what she’s forgotten and then when Stan tries to comfort. It’s so interesting because we’re already invested in the main romance, but Gondry (and his cast) are talented enough to make us feel as much for the supporting players without detracting from the main arc. Lacuna is intent on making all those memories which only means that they’ve got a hoard of good stuff stashed somewhere in their files. I say we dig up on dirt on Dr. Mierzwiak, Mary and Stan and make us a brilliant prequel.

Who’s with me?

A Heart Full of Links

Take a few seconds out of your day to head over to these good spots and get in some good reading.
          

Seems like everyone is talking about The Help, I submitted my review earlier today.  I haven't read the book but Mark (The Critical Condition) has and touches on three issues he thinks robs the film of its bite. I'm still not on board with the film promoting white-saviour antics but he makes some good points. Especially on the Constantine arc.
       
Yojimbo (Let's Not Talk About Movies) talks up Richard Burton's The Spy Who Came In From the Cold.  It's one of his seven Oscar nominated performances, but one I tend to forget. The movie's not usual Oscar fare...but then, what is?

Alex (Alex in Movieland) is a Best Actress boy, so he turns to the Emmy's and takes a look at the nominees for Best Comedy Actress and Best Drama Actress. For me it's Mireille and Amy but his write-ups are interesting to read. I always love seeing what cinephiles think of TV (Ryan and I should be getting to discussing the overall nominees and their submissions, soonish.)
                
And, Walter (The Silver Screening Room) isn't really a Best Actress guy, but he is going back to 1964 and looking at the Best Actress race. I honestly can't remember any of the performances other than Julie well, I remember Sophia being fiery...but..isn't she always?
    
Remember American Psycho? It's the only performance of Bale's that I truly love he almost made my top 5 that year. Dan (Dan the Movie Man) takes a look at the film.
        
 Sometimes I feel like such an awful member of the LAMB I always forget  to keep up with events. I'm not sure if the Cronerberg event has passed, but Anna reviews the film of his I'll touch on if it's not. A History of Violence is one of the finest films of 2005...and perhaps, the decade, even if she's vaguely reticent.
        

Ruth (FlixChatter) watched Branagh's adaptation of what is arguably Shakespeare's most beloved play Hamlet and she loved it. Incidentally, as much as I love the Bard Hamlet probably wouldn't even rank in my top 10 favourites of his. But, then, there's so much goodness to plow through. For the record, I think Branagh gives a good performance but taking into context the character for me he comes across as too much of a dubious anti-hero and not at all the confused lad that Hamlet should be.

Summer's almost done, I've been less than enthused. Tom (Reinvention: The Journal of a Dog-Lover, Book-Reader, Moviegoer, and Writer) discusses it in a two parts, one, two.
          
And, finally, this post is a week old, but I have to link to it. Nick (Anomalous Material) masterfully discusses what he considers to be the flaws in Inception. It's a fine read.
         
Don't forget to keep reading and supporting your fellow bloggers. Okay, as you were.

“You is kind, you is smart, you is important”

The Help: directed and written by Tate Taylor
 
It’s become difficult to separate Tate Taylor’s The Help from the plethora of internet argument that has followed it since its release.There was a blogathon some time back questioning whether or not films have an ethical service to pay to viewers. I think no, I’ve always maintained that art shouldn’t be impugned with having to hold some sort of utilitarian purposes before it could be endorsed. Still, I don’t want to turn this into a rote “response” review, because that really establishes little of how I feel about the film. The Help is, at its root, an ensemble drama created from a web of interwoven storylines. Like any ensemble the overall attempts at entwining sometimes fall limp and it’s that dichotomy between the storylines that land and those that falter that exists as the main crutch of The Help. Even though, conversely, it’s the rapport of the cast even amidst the occasional unwieldy plot arcs that puts it back on its feet again.

The place is Jackson, Mississippi and the time is the sixties. Historically it’s a time marked by the overwhelming social tension in the South. But, The Help isn’t really interested in being a civil rights’ drama even though it hovers on the very racial boundaries which define the era. Like the book within the movie, it’s – in theory – a testament to the black maids who were irreplaceable to the white women of the era, a book which grows from an idea Skeeter Phelan decides upon when tasked with impressing a New York editor. Multifaceted stories like these are the sort of ideal vehicles for actors to whet their talents working opposite each other but there’s a sense that Taylor is so excited at the chance to get these women doing some actressing; (and with Sissy Spaceck, Viola Davis, Jessica Chastain, Bryce Dallas Howard, Octavia Spencer, Alison Janney and a slew of others who could blame him?) that he falters on the reason that they get together in the first place.

This isn’t a Traffic or Crash situation where grander themes and chance occurrences tie the cast together, it’s Skeeter’s book which is the overarching binder of it all and the most notable mistake of the entire thing is that Skeeter’s motivation remain specious for most of the film. It adds to the dramatic oeuvre to have an emotional revelation at the film’s climax, but it would have made more dramatic profundity as the impetus for the entire film. It’s because of this flaccidity in her storyline that makes it fall limp around the others – even if her performance is as charming as allowed. The film opens asking Aibeleen – the maid who provides the film’s narrative voice – what it’s like taking care of children of the whites when hers are at home being taken care by others. It’s in the middle of the story and we suspect there’s grief in this woman. But, it’s an important question because that is the crux a hefty portion of the story rests on. The relationship the maids have with their employers.
         
Taylor has his work cut out for him because The Help attempts to toe that delicate line between humour and drama which is already difficult enough without the added difficulty of doing so with in a time when that tenuous balance is attempting to address something with as much gravity. Unsurprisingly, he approaches the issue of the genre mixing with the sort of occasional hokey plotting that marks those well intended ensemble dramas. The thing about being hokey is that sometimes it works and I’m immediately reminded of Herbert Ross and the work he did on Steel Magnolias - treading a wellworn path but occasionally breathing surprising amounts of sincerity into it through the performances. And, boy those performances are something. Mostly. It’s the trio of Octavia Spencer, Viola Davis and a luminous Jessica Chastain who thrills with a role painted all too broadly to be deserve such a earnest handling.

The film soars when it touches on these three characters. Not that it does poorly with the supporting cast; but there’s something vaguely off. Bryce Dallas Howard creates a villain that’s so unrelenting in her evilness that in a way I feel she subverts any racial aspirations of the film. By having the main antagonist to the blacks be a thoroughly evil specimen Taylor seems to forget that nice good people could be just as racist. But, it’s not really a movie about the white racist people so it doesn’t irk as much as it could. Ultimately I’m not even sure it’s a film about Skeeter’s book. Every wants to feel as if they’re part of something and that the work they’re doing is significant. Celia and Minny forge a bond, Skeeter hones her craft and Aibileen was getting that, in part, from the children she reared but ultimately it just wasn’t enough. When she walks out that house at the end, though, even though the future is tenuous you get the feeling that Aibileen’s finally believes what she’s been telling Elizabeth’s daughter all that time. Telling her story just might have been the most cathartic thing for her. And, it’s not because of Skeeter really – Skeeter is just a peripheral inclusion. Aibeleen is the film’s crux, Skeeter is just the help.

B
Downgraded to  a B-

Children of a Lesser Oscar

Is there any Best Actress winner of the last 30 years that receives less buzz that Marlee Matlin? No one cheering on the performance, no one complaining about the win, nothing about Children of a Lesser God even. Even though the movie on occasion tends to land with a lack of bite it’s really quite enjoyable and Marlee Matlin and William Hurt are great opposite each other. And Piper Laurie is as good as usual in a short role that for some reason netted her an Oscar nod. It’s Marlee’s film all the way, so there’s really no better way to remember her on birthday.

And she was only 21 when she did it.

Randomness: 1985 Best Actress

When good old Alex of Alex in Movieland drew 1985 as the next year for his Best Actress project my brain couldn’t help but drift to the subject of one of my favourite live Oscar moments. As per usual the category was presented by the previous year’s winner in the male category so F. Murray Abraham fresh off his win for his stunning performance in Amadeus takes to the podium and calls out the list of nominees – Anne Bancroft in Agnes of God, Whoopi Goldberg in The Color Purple, Jessica Lange in Sweet Dreams, Geraldine Page in The Trip to Bountiful, Meryl Streep in Out of Africa. Before he deigns to announce the winner he...well, just watch the video.

Now, I’m sure F. Murray is just a fan of Geraldine – who wouldn’t be? The woman was an astonishingly good actress who’d helmed a number of excellent films, even if her performance here wasn’t excellent – she was more than overdue. But, I love that indistinct eye-roll Bancroft gives. You might remember the two went head to head in another brilliant Actress line-up (by my poor estimations, the strongest Actress line-up) and Anne won for her work in The Miracle Worker. It’s so adorable how Jessica mouths the winner just before Abraham and how Geraldine has to put her shoes on to come up to the podium – it’s as if she didn’t think she was going to win. This video is just lovely.
       
Other than newbie Whoopi, celebrating her first nod, the argument could have been that any of the four was the “greatest” actress. Meryl and Jessica had both won Oscars three years earlier and were doing quite well in the eighties, and Anne is a fine actress. Really, I can’t say I’ve got any problems with Geraldine’s win. I remember the entire batch fondly, and I don’t see Whoopi as the clear frontrunner most seem to remember has. And, it’s a shame Kathleen Turner (Prizzi’s Honor), Mia Farrow (The Purple Rose of Cairo and Sonia Braga (Kiss of the Spider Woman) lucked out. Although I have no idea who I’d chuck out for them... Still, I’m waiting to see what Alex has to say.
        

How appropriate was Abraham’s preamble? Who would you have Oscared in 1985? I’d say Geraldine was and is the finest of the five – who’d you pick?

“Sometimes stepping back is part of the job...”

The Whistleblower: directed by Larysa Kondracki; written by Larysa Kondracki and Eilis Kirwan

The Whistleblower is a specific kind of issues-centred film, the kind of which we’ve seen in hoards over the past decade. This time the issue at the centre is human trafficking in Bosnia, a dreadful situation that Nebraskan policewoman Kathryn Bolkovac turned peacekeeper happens upon when she takes a job in post-war Bosnia. It might be post-combat, but it’s certainly not post terror as young women are being sold to soldiers, diplomats and civilians. A character puts it so succinctly – they’re whores of the war. Obviously, it’s a story that deserves to be told but Kondracki, although creating a film that’s hardly genre defining manages to avoid a number of the more obvious pitfalls that befall the genre even as the film experiences occasional missteps.

Kondracki chooses to open the film not with a nod at our heroine-to-be but with a European fireside party where two girls are contemplating taking a vaguely explained job offer. They are painted, albeit briefly, as the most standard of teenagers – unaffectedly played by Roxana Condurache and Paula Schramm with what seems like the usual accumulation of familial issues. These girls will reappear later and be a key part of our journey into the gruesome picture the film paints as Kathryn uncovers heinous activities. Weisz’s Kathryn is a bit of enigma. A few short scenes establish that she’s divorced and on the losing side of a custody battle. Part of the reason she takes the job is to accrue some funds to try the case against. The dearth of information we’re given on Kathryn on the most obvious levels is detracts from the overall narrative, but it’s really an example of Kondracki’s approach to the film. But in the same way that we learn little about, for example, Will in Planet of the Apes who is a mere vehicle for the eventual seismic revolution of apes, Kathryn’s personal issues are secondary to the battle she’s fighting.

The tale is a singular one and Kondracki does some interesting things with the less is more adage. There’s almost a tunnel vision intent with which the narrative develops with the intent of moving the investigation along. The film manages to draw on Kathryn’s own quest for investigation. And, even though, the investigation in itself is not glamorous but the film uses the basic nature of the plot to rouse up tension and drama turning the film into less of a standard biopic and more of a standard thriller. And, like the most basic of thrillers our allegiance must rest with the protagonist and Rachel Weisz does a phenomenal job of carrying the film. It’s a performance that depends less on specific scenes and more on a complete sense of immersion in character. We never really know Kathryn but she’s our window through which we tell the story and Weisz plays it just right so that at a pivotal moment where everything gets a bit too real to be only “movie-like” we’re right there with her feeling all the horror that she feels watching the objectionable. It seems like a superfluous statement, but Weisz is an actor I find inimitable because of her natural cadence and it’s that cadence which is just as significant as her actual acting skills in selling the character.

There really isn’t much for those around her to do, even as Monica Bellucci, David Straitharn and Vanessa Redgrave do good things with small categories. Of the supporting cast it’s Jeannette Haine who impresses as one of the abducted girls mother. She’s something of a dead ringer for Joan Allen and gives an astounding performance in a matter of minutes. Cinematic-wise the film really isn’t that peerless, it’s generally a quite standard exercise but Kondracki controls it all with a sense of professionalism – intent on showing the horrors, but stepping back just enough to not making it overwrought. She’s lucky enough to have Rachel at the helm, and that’s what ultimately makes this one to consider.
             

 B-

“Caesar is home”

Rise of the Planet of the Apes: directed by Rupert Wyatt; written by Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver
    
The latest instalment in franchise of The Planet of the Apes opens with a scene that might seem extraneous – amidst a forest that is equal amounts beautiful and strangely unsettling an ape is captured. We don’t know it as yet, but as the animal is separated from its kind in a severance that seems particularly iniquitous Wyatt and his team are underscoring what will become one of the puzzling things about the film – a stringent exercise, it would seem, in emphasising the disparity between humans and animals.

It all begins in a laboratory in San Francisco where Franco’s Will is working on a drug to reverse Alzheimer’s, a drug being tested on apes and a drug which become shelved when one of the animals under treatment destroys the lab in maternal rage. The object of her maternal consternation is Caesar, an ape born with the gene who develops to become a paragon of his race. The film doesn’t depend on a lack of foresight as to what is to come (even though it depends on an uncertain type of suspense in the latter half) – when Will and Caesar first go to the park an eventual parting of ways is stridently evoked. The parting occurs when in an effort to defend Will’s father Caesar bits a neighbour landing him in a facility for chimps – and there the paradigm shift occurs as he moves from being man’s best friend to embracing his “nature”.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes benefits from an overwhelming precision. There are no superfluous supporting characters and each scene represents a specific movement forward. The film is essentially a fable, as such it depends on a speediness which doesn’t allow for – or even insist upon extended characterisations. It’s all about the visual, and Wyatt and his team deliver. The film is superbly edited and visual effects are seamlessly added to present the whole leading to as astounding showpiece set upon the San Francisco Bridge. Until then it’s uncertain where the narrative stands on the spat between human and ape and as a key promoter of the animal testing is destroyed by an ape it seems they make up their mind, which – with not much time left in the story – sends the film into curious territory seeming to exist as an allegory for animal rights and when the final scene occurs it seems to underscore that animals and humans should remain separate (albeit, equal in that separation). And really, that’s where my brain can’t help but being carted off in its own direction and I have to spend much more time trying to reconcile the film’s dictum with the film itself.

The issue of scientific ethics is one mired by centuries of debate so I’m neither here nor there on the actual scientific merit of the research. What is bewildering is the implication that, perhaps, there should be no mixing of different cultures. It’s difficult to ignore the potential for metaphor in the apes struggle and amidst the poignancy of Caesar’s homebound claims it reverberates a more disconcerting concept a union between different facets is impossible. There’s an early scene where Caesar asks Will if he’s a pet, a claim Will adamantly denies. And considering Caesar’s ability, and the bond the two have forged, such a title might be insulting – but I’m never completely convinced by what the narrative offer to believe that the apes have it that bad. The primate facility does harbour the despicable Dodge Landon who seems to harbour a significant hatred for the animals but the movement from destroying him to the entire city is dodgy. The thing is, Wyatt never explores that aspect of union between the two civilisations thoroughly, what remains is a thrilling spectacle which leaves a residue of a vaguely bitter backwash. The film offers off a visually satisfying dramatic account of innocuous acts leading to rebellion, but thinking too long on the equation prevents complete compliance after the fact – even though it’s difficult to not be enthralled during its runtime.

B

TV Week in Review:7th-11th August

I added a new show to my roundup this week. Ryan drew my attention to the new BBC series The Hour premiering this week which stars Ben Whishaw and Romola Garai (who you I had mentioned in a post a few months ago). Looking over this list I really do seem like an obsessive TV watcher. Ah, well. On with the roundup.

True Blood: “Spellbound”; Season Four, Episode Eight [B]

Regardless of quality I can always depend on the writing team of True Blood to ensure that developments are made in the major plot arcs, and this week there’s a lot that happens. The episode is tinged with goodness and occasional oddities and the graveyard showdown in particular comes off more disjointed than majestic. I don’t quite like the idea of Hoyt and Jessica severing their relationship (he’s my favourite non-magical creature and she’s my favourite vampire) but it’s excellently done and it’s great seeing Parrack get more to do. Still, amidst the overstuffed ensemble the main actors aren’t being given enough to do – Paquin in particular is being woefully underutilised. Moyer turns in a fine performance, though – and really even when it has its issues the shows delivers on intensity.
[Writing: B/B+; Directing: B+]

Breaking Bad: “Shotgun”; Season Four, Episode Five [B+]

Taking into account the headiness of the first few minutes the episode ended a bit limply, but it’s a generally fine venture. The show has always been one for slow moving arcs so we can only wait to see what becomes of the plan hoodwink Jesse for whatever. It’s troubling seeing Jesse become more and more antagonistic towards Walt, although Walt’s resultant paranoia is interesting to watch. We take a closer look at his personal life this week, and it’s nice to see him and Skylar having these sorts of romantic moments.
[Writing: B+; Directing B+]

Entourage: “One Last Shot”; Season Eight, Episode 4 [B+]
It’s not a seminal performance, but I can’t help but fête Grenier’s work on this show every time I can. I don’t know if it’s because he’s such a pretty boy to look at, but he’s always underrated and the show depends on Vince. Last season was particularly low on Eric/Vince bonding so it’s nice seeing Eric stepping in to offer some salient advice, even if he ends up being wrong. I like the idea that the show doesn’t try to consecrate its characters, and yet it’s not completely impossible to understand Vince’s logic of smoking weed to prove that he’s not addict. I’m a bit worried about how Mrs. Ari is being painted – a shrewish – but I couldn’t help but side with Ari this week. And, Piven continues to be a true comedic beating.
[Writing: B/B+; Directing: B/B+]

The Closer: “Home Improvement”; Season Seven, Episode Six [B+]
The episode is one of those moments where the show merges the comedic and the dramatic into such a zany whole that I can’t help but love it. I continue to miss Captain Raydor, but it’s nice to Brenda is taking her advice and working on getting a lawyer to defend her, who ends up being a hilarious side note character. And, the episode is filled with those innocuous hilarious moments. Even though an assumed paedophile has been murdered there are bits like that ridiculous confessions, Brenda pretending to be an open house buyer and her taking cable away from Fritz. It’s a tone that few shows manage, and no procedural has ever managed to achieve. Really, this show is terribly underrated.
[Writing: B+; Directing B+]

The Big C: “The Last Thanksgiving”; Season Two, Episode Eight [B+/A-]

Here again we have yet another fine episode to add to the list of goodness that this show has been offering this season. Event episodes are always interesting and it’s nice seeing the entire cast at one table doing great things. Mick’s thievery is a puzzling arc as is Paul aiding him, but I’m interested to see where it goes. The most beautiful moment of the episode was the girl talk in the kitchen with Andrea, Cathy and Rebecca which is perfectly handled by all three episodes. We get such hilarious things like Sean’s concept of Thanksgiving, and that adorable proposal and then the drama hits like Lee and Cathy’s argument and Rebecca losing her baby. And yet, it doesn’t spoil the greatness of the episode.
[Writing: B+/A-; Directing: A-]

Web Therapy: “Shrinking and Growing”; Season One, Episode Five [B/B+]
Is this show perfect? Perhaps not, we’re only able to be presented with a full picture of Fiona and the episodic quality is strident at times but even when certain elements waver the comedy is always delivered and watching Fiona deal with her lying patients, and her exasperating one adds even more goodness to the show. The return of Komal was much appreciated, as was his liaison with Gina who continues to be one of the most ridiculous (albeit hilarious) characters on television. There are still significant things to ponder, like Victor Garber being underused but the show continues to deliver in a relatively good way with a fine lead performance.
[Writing: B+-; Directing: B+]

The Hour: “One”; Season One, Episode One [A-]

I suppose a paragraph of drooling would accomplish nothing than mucking up this page, so I’ll desist but could I really resist a British, period piece series with Ben and Romola? I didn’t even have to be nepotistic because the show IS good. The acting is superlative, I’ve never seen Ben as charming and Romola is just lovely (and she looks so gorgeous). There shall be murder – two already in the pilot – and it’s going to be interesting to see how the TV show they plan to produce will work out. Admittedly, there isn’t anything exceptionally new in taking a backward glance at the things that were young in generations ago but Morgan doesn’t come as supercilious. The world she’s creating seems lived in, and you get the sense that you’re now meeting characters who’ve been existing for years before you met them. And, in a pilot, that’s a brilliant thing.
[Writing: A; Directing: A]

Damages: “Add that little hopper to your stew” Season Four, Episode Six [A-]

After some stellar work in the first three episodes it’s unfortunate that Messina is having less and less to do. Fortunately, it’s not really to the detriment to the show since this was a particularly fine episode. It’s the battle of the older folk as both Glenn and Goodman turn in excellent performances. We’re finally getting to see Howard move from the gregarious role he’s shown thus far this season to understand just what sort of man he is. It’s a chilling scene as he forces a “friend” to sell him some land; it’s one of those intricately directed scenes that this show keeps throwing at us. Michael shows up and doesn’t seem any less psychotic than he was before, and naturally Patty isn’t exactly thrilled at the prospect. The biggest things, though, were watching Patty and Ellen brilliantly trying to work around Nasim’s arrest. It’s so nice to see how the women have come to play off each other, and seeing Ellen thinking back to season one hijinks was a nice touch.
[Writing: A-; Directing: A-]

Wilfred: “Compassion”; Season One, Episode Nine [B+]
This week’s episode offers what could become a significant development in terms of Ryan’s questionable – at best – mental state. His mother turns up in the story, and it turns out that she was in a mental institution for twenty years – choosing to remain there instead of coming home to her children. Mary Steenburgen is an absolute delight playing crazy but not CRAZY (why doesn’t this Oscar winning actress get more roles?) and watching Ryan struggle with the fear of becoming her is a significant development. I’m still not sure what we’re supposed to make of Ryan’s sole friend being a talking dog but the black comedy packed a significant punch this time.
[Writing: B+; Directing: B/B+]

Random Musings

• Anna Chanellor playing a quasi mentor to Garai's Bel managed to draw my attention away from Romola and Ben. Hopefully we get more of her.
• Anyone else notice Patty’s slutty assistant (yes, I said it) checking out Michael?
• What was up with that woman from Kip’s gym checking out Fiona?
• If Jessica and Hoyt break up will Parrack have even less to do?
• That montage of Jesse on his trip was sort of brilliant.

Standout Performances
Ben Whishaw in The Hour A
Glenn Close in Damages A-
Laura Linney in The Big C A-
John Goodman in Damages B+/A-
Romola Garai in The Hour B+/A-


Elijah Wood in Wilfred B+
Bryan Cranston in Breaking Bad B+
Kyra Sedgwick in The Closer B+
Lisa Kudrow in Web Therapy B+
Mary Steenburgen in Wildred B+
Rose Byrne in Damages B+
John Benjamin Hickey in The Big C B+
Stephen Moyer in True Blood B+
         

Did you catch The Hour? Tune in for Patty’s tremendousness? What did you watch this week?

Happy Birthday, Matthew Perry....

 

 

 

...because television would not be the same without Chandler Muriel Bing.

Two Directors go Fourth

I keep on thinking I should jump in with the Oscar discussions that are beginning to grow but I sort of don’t want to. Mostly because I haven’t seen any of the released films with potential buzz (, Tree of Life, and two because 2011 is sort of boring me; I’m digressing though. I recently came across two photos for two upcoming releases Reitman’s Young Adult and Daldry’s Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. Daldry’s is an adaptation of 2005 novel about a 10 year old who loses his father in the 9/11 bombings and journeys across New York in search of a totem his father left him. Young Adult is an original one about a writer of teen literature who heads back to her hometown to win her old boyfriend. The first sounds incredibly sentimental, the latter sounds a bit convoluted but they’re both flirting with Oscar potentialities, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
                
I didn’t even realise at first that for both Daldry and Reiteman this is their fourth release. Between the two, the men’s films 6 films have racked up an Oscar tally of 27 nominations. Daldry has been particularly lucky in that each of his features netted him an Oscar nod for Best Director, Reitman has had to make good with two – incidentally, my favourite feature of his is Thank You For Smoking which netted nary an Oscar nod.
                
Truthfully, I’m doubtful about both directors’ chances. Sure, Young Adult has Oscar winning Juno Diablo Cody and Oscar winning actress Charlize Theron, but I’m supremely doubtful as to how it will play out with the Academy. And even though Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close has that strong dramatic mainstay can Daldry be lucky enough to have four consecutive Oscar nods? Granted, I think he deserved every one of those nominations. Daldry’s one-two-three punch of Billy Elliot, The Hours, The Reader easily trumps Reitman’s Thank You For Smoking, Juno, Up in the Air. But, really, it’s sight unseen at the moment. There’s no telling how either of the films will screen, and what Oscar will think.
          
Which of these directors fourth features are you looking forward to?

Darling, Rosaline...

Yesterday I got into a lively mini-discussion on twitter with Ryan and Amy about the recent plans to adapt the soon to be written novel about Romeo’s Rosaline (via). Remember Rosaline? She’s the unseen girl in Romeo & Juliet who Romeo spends the first act moping about until he meets the love of his life. She shows up in Shakespeare in Love played by Sandra Reinton as a maid who is Will’s unfaithful girlfriend before Viola. Truthfully, the story captured my attention at first because of Keira Knightley who’s in talks to play the role. There’s a possibility that this won’t reach fruition but my interest in piqued. I’m ever so fond of Keira and the concept seems interesting. Although, I’m not as over the moon about Benvolio (the lesser of the two Capulet cousins) being the object of her affection.
           
That didn’t stop me from pondering on potential actors to play opposite Keira. It’s a toss-up as to what the actual plot will be but I’m sticking to Ben Whishaw was Benvolio, and how about Rupert Friend and Carey Mulligan as Romeo and Juliet for a Pride and Prejudice reunion. This isn’t just another prequel/sequel for me – it’s a genius concept (now if only one of my spin-offs could get picked up.)
             

Interested in this concept? What do you think of Keira as Rosaline? Who’d you cast as Romeo and Juliet?