In life there are certain pieces of pop culture which we have weaknesses for and many of them remain unexplainable. Usually they are follies of youth and while I can't explain the fascinations of today's youth with Justin Beiber or reality television, I understand the attraction based on my childhood love of Prince and the film Purple Rain (Albert Magnoli, 1984). To me, films become a part of us. We absorb their images, remember the lines and their songs resonate in our minds. I think part of the power of film lies in it's ability to become so ubiquitous within our conscious mind. As a cinephile many classic films do this to me, whether it is the mis-quoted Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca (Michael Curtiz, 1942) or seeing Jamie (Colin Firth) win the love of Aurelia (Lucia Moniz) in the brilliant Love Actually (Richard Curtis, 2003). The thing about Purple Rain is it really isn't very good, it's not considered a classic and ultimately its only purpose is to propel Prince in his career. Which doesn't mean I don't love every second of it!
And what an incredible vehicle the film is for Prince. The film showcases everything that Prince is good at, from catchy pop songs to blistering guitar work, from massive sex appeal to charming idiosyncrasies, and all of it is on display here. One of the biggest pop acts from the eighties (anyone remember Prince v MJ debates) Prince is one of those rare pop stars with actual real musical talent. The film shows him doing it all, from his soulful rendering in the title song to the underrated guitar solo in Computer Blue. At the same time he is blessed with charisma and sex appeal, and that rare quality in which woman want to be with him and men want to be around him (or both and vice versa). As he coaxes Appolonia to baptize herself in the waters of Lake Minnetonka all of these qualities are on display. Still, the best that Prince has to offer comes out in one of the best soundtracks to a film ever made.
Films of the eighties saw a rise in the use of soundtracks to not only promote the film but also as another revenue stream for the film. Films such as Footloose (Herbert Ross, 1984) and Top Gun (Tony Scott, 1986) extensively used soundtracks to promote and the songs from the soundtrack were in turn used to propel narrative and fill screen time. No film soundtrack from the eighties worked for it's film quite like Purple Rain did. The soundtrack generated three top ten hits and each is as memorable as the next. The film starts with the frenzy of Let's Go Crazy, propels through a montage with When Doves Cry and allows The Kid (Prince) to finally realize his potential with the beautiful and haunting title song Purple Rain. Granted these songs all exist within the narrative but that doesn't preclude them from being absolutely great.
Also great within the film (and this is entirely subjective to me and probably me alone) is the outlandish production design of this film and its setting in the eighties. The costumes, hair and makeup and dancing is either ridiculous or extremely cool, depending on your point of view. The colors are bright, the fabrics are silky and shiny, the hair god-awful. I won't mention the dancing as a better example of that would be Footloose. What really speaks to me in the production design, twenty five years later, is the uniqueness and individuality placed within the PD. I have long believed that as a child of the eighties we had none of this, that we were all clones of one another. Never is this more evident than when one is watching The Breakfast Club (John Hughes, 1985). Those five main characters are eighties children. I have always felt there was no deviation for kids of this time. We all fell into one of those five groups on display in The Breakfast Club and that was it. Watching Purple Rain I must now re-evaluate this belief, and if a film can do that after twenty five years and over at least twice as many viewings, that speaks volumes about how good that film is. One of my all time favorites, it always will be!
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
The Big Sleep (Howard Hawks, 1946)
Never one of my favorite actors, Humphrey Bogart has always been a little rough for me. I prefer the polish of Cary Grant or the fatherly calm that Jimmy Stewart provides. Recently though I have been trying to catch more Bogart films and I must admit the guy has been growing on me. I think that the hardest part to take with Bogart is that many of his films seem dated to audiences today. As my movie palate has matured, so to has my acceptance of his work. So when I see a classic such as The Big Sleep (Howard Hawks, 1946) I am constantly amazed at how much I enjoy these films. And I find myself having less trepidation when it comes to watching the lesser known classics.
To me, The Big Sleep is all about three things. There is the pairing of Bogart and Bacall, some stellar writing and dialogue and with that, an attendant narrative that is very confusing and long.
Often times after watching a film I have never seen, particularly a classic, I instantly go to Wikipedia and read up on it's stars or even the production. I like to read what I don't know. The pairing of Bogart and Bacall is one of Hollywood royalty, yet other than Key Largo (John Huston, 1948) I had never seen their films. In fact, other than Key Largo and How To Marry A Millionaire (Jean Negulesco, 1953) I realized I hadn't seen Bacall in anything. What a revelation to me that Bacall is in this film. Overshadowed (to me) in Millionaire, in this film she shines. Utterly gorgeous and alluring as hell, she is at times sultry and seductive yet at others completely unpredictable and dangerous. I found myself wanting Bogart to 'get wise and leave this dame alone'. But the chemistry between the two is undeniable and on film they are mesmerizing.
Another undeniable fact is that the writing is smart and witty with dialogue that cracks off the screen but also provides a narrative that is too long and confusing at times. The writing fits the era perfectly, as well as Bogart's screen persona. He has plenty of wicked quick comebacks, opportunity to rattle off lines in rapid succession and dialogue that is incredible. The dialogue is eminently quotable, sexual in tone and daring down to it's core. While watching I had to tweet three times the lines I just heard on screen, that's how good they are. And the sexual undertones in the film are in abundance. It seems as if half the lines spoken by Bogie and Bacall to each other are about them wanting to have sex with each other. But as good as that dialogue is, the narrative is too long and confusing.
In Hitchcock's films he often employed a MacGuffin, a device used to throw the viewer off the trail of what the film truly was about. I'd like to say that Hawks did something similar in The Big Sleep, but I don't think this is the case. Halfway through the film the original crime is solved, but then the film continues for another 45 minutes. This is because the narrative is overly long, trying to fit too many twists and turns into it's structure. It just serves to confuse the viewer. To be honest, I'm still not sure who the killer really was. I think I know, but then again, I may be wrong.
If you're into classics or if you haven't seen this film, definitely watch it. If your stuck with someone who is into classics and you aren't, take everything in the context of the time this film was made and it'll be much easier to watch. For those people like me, with an appetite for classics, this type of film is pure joy.
To me, The Big Sleep is all about three things. There is the pairing of Bogart and Bacall, some stellar writing and dialogue and with that, an attendant narrative that is very confusing and long.
Often times after watching a film I have never seen, particularly a classic, I instantly go to Wikipedia and read up on it's stars or even the production. I like to read what I don't know. The pairing of Bogart and Bacall is one of Hollywood royalty, yet other than Key Largo (John Huston, 1948) I had never seen their films. In fact, other than Key Largo and How To Marry A Millionaire (Jean Negulesco, 1953) I realized I hadn't seen Bacall in anything. What a revelation to me that Bacall is in this film. Overshadowed (to me) in Millionaire, in this film she shines. Utterly gorgeous and alluring as hell, she is at times sultry and seductive yet at others completely unpredictable and dangerous. I found myself wanting Bogart to 'get wise and leave this dame alone'. But the chemistry between the two is undeniable and on film they are mesmerizing.
Another undeniable fact is that the writing is smart and witty with dialogue that cracks off the screen but also provides a narrative that is too long and confusing at times. The writing fits the era perfectly, as well as Bogart's screen persona. He has plenty of wicked quick comebacks, opportunity to rattle off lines in rapid succession and dialogue that is incredible. The dialogue is eminently quotable, sexual in tone and daring down to it's core. While watching I had to tweet three times the lines I just heard on screen, that's how good they are. And the sexual undertones in the film are in abundance. It seems as if half the lines spoken by Bogie and Bacall to each other are about them wanting to have sex with each other. But as good as that dialogue is, the narrative is too long and confusing.
In Hitchcock's films he often employed a MacGuffin, a device used to throw the viewer off the trail of what the film truly was about. I'd like to say that Hawks did something similar in The Big Sleep, but I don't think this is the case. Halfway through the film the original crime is solved, but then the film continues for another 45 minutes. This is because the narrative is overly long, trying to fit too many twists and turns into it's structure. It just serves to confuse the viewer. To be honest, I'm still not sure who the killer really was. I think I know, but then again, I may be wrong.
If you're into classics or if you haven't seen this film, definitely watch it. If your stuck with someone who is into classics and you aren't, take everything in the context of the time this film was made and it'll be much easier to watch. For those people like me, with an appetite for classics, this type of film is pure joy.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Midnight in Paris (Woody Allen, 2011)
It is very maddening as a cinephile when I am inundated with advertising for the latest Kevin James masterpiece or even a Michael Bay explosion extravaganza yet never once see an advertisement for quite possibly the best film I've seen this year. This is the case with Midnight in Paris, the latest and possibly one of the best films in the career of Woody Allen. I am not much of an Allen fan, in fact his particular schmaltzy, whiney humor turns me off. But on the recommendation of one of the two I trust, I went to see this film. I was utterly captivated and struck with that rare feeling. There are times when one can watch a film and not only get completely lost within the film but also get that drive and desire to make things similar. This film is one of those that will make others want to become filmmakers and that is a powerful thing. Every aspect of this film is done remarkably well, making it one of my favorites of 2011 immediately.
Let me start with the writing. The concept of the narrative is remarkable. Allen creates a layered and complex narrative that is fascinating. And unlike another of my favorites from the recent past, Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010), this narrative doesn't require multiple viewings to peel back those layers. The films analyzes the role and purpose of art in past and contemporary society and gives voice to that ancient struggle any artist faces, surviving while maintaining their integrity as an artist. It also looks at the fate of modern man, trapped in a world where succumbing to societal pressures becomes the far easier, primarily taken route one travels. And then ultimately it is also a love story, one where a man must find his true passion as well as deal with escaping that which will serve to bind him. A story this good, written this well had better earn some Oscar consideration.
What makes the narrative so good, so powerful is in it's examination of modern man struggling to cope with societal pressures and expectations. Gil Pender (Owen Wilson) is a successful man. He is engaged to a beautiful woman, has a rather successful and lucrative career as a Hollywood screenwriter yet something doesn't quite add up for Gil. He is on his second visit to Paris, and he laments two things. First he feels he shortchanged himself on his previous visit, hindering his artistic future. Second, he romanticizes Paris of the 1920's and it's attendant residents, the members of the Lost Generation. Ultimately Gil has reached a crossroads in his life, as we all do sooner or later. And at this crossroads he is forced to see things objectively. Will he choose the mainstream life and probably be unhappy? Or shall he follow his heart and ultimately do what will be fulfilling and leave him happy? This is a very powerful situation he faces and one that is extremely prevalent in contemporary society. We are constantly bombarded with images and pressures of how we are 'supposed' to live our lives. Yet where has the creativity gone? Our energy and passion for things. This is a beautiful moment in your life, if you ever face this choice. It truly changes your life. ( on a personal note, I've faced it, chosen my path and never looked back. If only you have the chance to be so lucky)
As much as the writing is beautiful and the power of the narrative so fitting, the score for this film is both at the same time. Going back and bringing alive the music of the era was just fantastic and fit every place it was put into for the film. Also, the job done by the art department and the overall production design for the film was tremendous. The costumes were flawless, the myriad pieces from the era beautiful. And the casting of the supporting characters made the film. Though small, Adrien Brody's turn as "Dali" (I wish I could write the inflection Brody placed on his name, comedy gold) was a scene stealer and indicative of a great performance by all.
Speaking of great performances, Owen Wilson turns in his career defining moment in the role of Gil Pender. At times quirky and off beat, at definite odds with his fiancée family, Wilson hits the role of Pender as the artist at a crossroads perfectly. Yet the most amazing part of his performance lies in his eerily similar mannerisms to a young Woody Allen. Watch the film and tell me Wilson doesn't remind you of Alvy Singer (Allen) in Annie Hall (Allen, 1977). Coincidentally, the last comedy to win Best Picture. Also of particular note is the beauty and grace of Marion Cotillard. She single handedly is going to make me want to go to Paris and give up my eternal chase of Barbie and find myself a European charmer! And Rachel McAdams is stunning as well. Can someone please tell her to remain a blonde for all her roles?
This is a great film, one you may not have heard about or seen advertised. It is a romantic comedy albeit one that stretches the conventions of the genre. That said, with the dearth of quality in that genre, maybe stretching conventions is what's needed. And ultimately I hope that the Academy remembers this film come awards season, because it deserves the recognition.
Let me start with the writing. The concept of the narrative is remarkable. Allen creates a layered and complex narrative that is fascinating. And unlike another of my favorites from the recent past, Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010), this narrative doesn't require multiple viewings to peel back those layers. The films analyzes the role and purpose of art in past and contemporary society and gives voice to that ancient struggle any artist faces, surviving while maintaining their integrity as an artist. It also looks at the fate of modern man, trapped in a world where succumbing to societal pressures becomes the far easier, primarily taken route one travels. And then ultimately it is also a love story, one where a man must find his true passion as well as deal with escaping that which will serve to bind him. A story this good, written this well had better earn some Oscar consideration.
What makes the narrative so good, so powerful is in it's examination of modern man struggling to cope with societal pressures and expectations. Gil Pender (Owen Wilson) is a successful man. He is engaged to a beautiful woman, has a rather successful and lucrative career as a Hollywood screenwriter yet something doesn't quite add up for Gil. He is on his second visit to Paris, and he laments two things. First he feels he shortchanged himself on his previous visit, hindering his artistic future. Second, he romanticizes Paris of the 1920's and it's attendant residents, the members of the Lost Generation. Ultimately Gil has reached a crossroads in his life, as we all do sooner or later. And at this crossroads he is forced to see things objectively. Will he choose the mainstream life and probably be unhappy? Or shall he follow his heart and ultimately do what will be fulfilling and leave him happy? This is a very powerful situation he faces and one that is extremely prevalent in contemporary society. We are constantly bombarded with images and pressures of how we are 'supposed' to live our lives. Yet where has the creativity gone? Our energy and passion for things. This is a beautiful moment in your life, if you ever face this choice. It truly changes your life. ( on a personal note, I've faced it, chosen my path and never looked back. If only you have the chance to be so lucky)
As much as the writing is beautiful and the power of the narrative so fitting, the score for this film is both at the same time. Going back and bringing alive the music of the era was just fantastic and fit every place it was put into for the film. Also, the job done by the art department and the overall production design for the film was tremendous. The costumes were flawless, the myriad pieces from the era beautiful. And the casting of the supporting characters made the film. Though small, Adrien Brody's turn as "Dali" (I wish I could write the inflection Brody placed on his name, comedy gold) was a scene stealer and indicative of a great performance by all.
Speaking of great performances, Owen Wilson turns in his career defining moment in the role of Gil Pender. At times quirky and off beat, at definite odds with his fiancée family, Wilson hits the role of Pender as the artist at a crossroads perfectly. Yet the most amazing part of his performance lies in his eerily similar mannerisms to a young Woody Allen. Watch the film and tell me Wilson doesn't remind you of Alvy Singer (Allen) in Annie Hall (Allen, 1977). Coincidentally, the last comedy to win Best Picture. Also of particular note is the beauty and grace of Marion Cotillard. She single handedly is going to make me want to go to Paris and give up my eternal chase of Barbie and find myself a European charmer! And Rachel McAdams is stunning as well. Can someone please tell her to remain a blonde for all her roles?
This is a great film, one you may not have heard about or seen advertised. It is a romantic comedy albeit one that stretches the conventions of the genre. That said, with the dearth of quality in that genre, maybe stretching conventions is what's needed. And ultimately I hope that the Academy remembers this film come awards season, because it deserves the recognition.
Horrible Bosses (Seth Gordon, 2011)
By association, there are not many of us in contemporary society that will not identify immediately with the film Horrible Bosses (Seth Gordon, 2011). Who hasn't dealt with the whip cracking slave driver, the credit stealing backstabber or been sexually harassed by Jennifer Aniston (okay, that last one is a little far fetched and I must admit, a personal fantasy)? So the identification level for this film is built right in to it's premise. This helps to make the film funny to it's audience through this identification and that combined with some excellent casting and good writing make the film rather enjoyable.
The strength of the film lies in the casting, both in it's main characters and in the casting of the supporting roles, which is done magnificently. First, the casting of the three main characters. In a film such as this, the casting of these roles has to be done well but almost as importantly is the chemistry that exists between these characters. That chemistry has to create a believability, we have to buy that these three guys would actually be friends. Think of Anchorman (Adam McKay, 2004) and how you can totally believe Ron, Brick, Brian and Champ (Will Ferrell, Steve Carell, Paul Ruud and David Koechner) have intertwined lives. The same can be said for our three characters in Horrible Bosses. When you see them hanging out after work, don't you see yourself and your buddies? The believability is re-enforced and we buy into the narrative. This is helped by some amazing casting of the supporting characters.
The supporting characters are what serve to cement the audiences identification with the narrative completely. Who hasn't worked for a self serving jerk who nitpicks at the slightest thing (you were two minutes late this morning)? Or had to deal with the bosses ignorant son? Kevin Spacey and Colin Farrell both assume their roles with gusto and hit on all cylinders. Those two, along with Jennifer Aniston, do such an amazing job that they almost overcome the three main characters, but the director deftly keeps them simmering below the surface just far enough away so that they do not overpower the main characters. It also helps immensely that all three are extremely talented and are all playing against type, allowing them freedom in their roles.
It is this freedom in playing their respective roles which interests me the most, particularly as it pertains to Jennifer Aniston. As Molly Lambert wrote in this piece http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6750084/the-poor-jen-problem
Jennifer Aniston has to deal with many things beyond the periphery of her chosen career. While Lambert goes more in depth on her role as a woman, after watching this film I thought more about her career. During her run on Friends and then post-Friends as well, Aniston has treated us to a forgettable run of romantic comedies which fail to give her any credibility as an actress. With the role of Julia Harris, Aniston isn't pigeonholed into that romantic lead and she shines. Her appeal to the American public has always been about sex. To women, they identify with her personal life. With men it's about her physicality and sexual allure. In the role of Julia, not restricted to the archetypes of a romantic comedy she stretches and seemingly blossoms. She is sexy in a way men want her to be and strikes back at her public persona at the same time. I think it would be a great career move to see Aniston forgo the romantic comedy route and do more supporting roles, even choose completely offbeat ones. She needs to stretch as an actress and give us more. She has the ability and I guarantee the public wants to see her in this capacity. And if she does, maybe we will only have to avoid Sandra Bullock and Katherine Heigl films with Ryan Reynolds and Matthew McConnaughey from here on out.
Horrible Bosses is not a great comedy along the lines of an Anchorman but it has it's moments. Just please don't make a sequel.
The strength of the film lies in the casting, both in it's main characters and in the casting of the supporting roles, which is done magnificently. First, the casting of the three main characters. In a film such as this, the casting of these roles has to be done well but almost as importantly is the chemistry that exists between these characters. That chemistry has to create a believability, we have to buy that these three guys would actually be friends. Think of Anchorman (Adam McKay, 2004) and how you can totally believe Ron, Brick, Brian and Champ (Will Ferrell, Steve Carell, Paul Ruud and David Koechner) have intertwined lives. The same can be said for our three characters in Horrible Bosses. When you see them hanging out after work, don't you see yourself and your buddies? The believability is re-enforced and we buy into the narrative. This is helped by some amazing casting of the supporting characters.
The supporting characters are what serve to cement the audiences identification with the narrative completely. Who hasn't worked for a self serving jerk who nitpicks at the slightest thing (you were two minutes late this morning)? Or had to deal with the bosses ignorant son? Kevin Spacey and Colin Farrell both assume their roles with gusto and hit on all cylinders. Those two, along with Jennifer Aniston, do such an amazing job that they almost overcome the three main characters, but the director deftly keeps them simmering below the surface just far enough away so that they do not overpower the main characters. It also helps immensely that all three are extremely talented and are all playing against type, allowing them freedom in their roles.
It is this freedom in playing their respective roles which interests me the most, particularly as it pertains to Jennifer Aniston. As Molly Lambert wrote in this piece http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6750084/the-poor-jen-problem
Jennifer Aniston has to deal with many things beyond the periphery of her chosen career. While Lambert goes more in depth on her role as a woman, after watching this film I thought more about her career. During her run on Friends and then post-Friends as well, Aniston has treated us to a forgettable run of romantic comedies which fail to give her any credibility as an actress. With the role of Julia Harris, Aniston isn't pigeonholed into that romantic lead and she shines. Her appeal to the American public has always been about sex. To women, they identify with her personal life. With men it's about her physicality and sexual allure. In the role of Julia, not restricted to the archetypes of a romantic comedy she stretches and seemingly blossoms. She is sexy in a way men want her to be and strikes back at her public persona at the same time. I think it would be a great career move to see Aniston forgo the romantic comedy route and do more supporting roles, even choose completely offbeat ones. She needs to stretch as an actress and give us more. She has the ability and I guarantee the public wants to see her in this capacity. And if she does, maybe we will only have to avoid Sandra Bullock and Katherine Heigl films with Ryan Reynolds and Matthew McConnaughey from here on out.
Horrible Bosses is not a great comedy along the lines of an Anchorman but it has it's moments. Just please don't make a sequel.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
The Talented Mr. Ripley (Anthony Minghella, 1999)
Amazingly I had never seen the film The Talented Mr. Ripley (Anthony Minghella, 1999) prior to viewing it tonight. I think I had tried once or twice before and the pacing of the film, which is quite slow, always seemed to interrupt my viewing of the film. Having watched the film in it's entirety now, I wish I had seen it sooner. The film has an excellent narrative, full of twists and turns, and its examination of it's sociopathic protagonist is revealing to say the least. In fact, I really would like to read the novel to further examine not only the adaptation of the film but even to examine how the novel reflects the time in which it was written. The portrayal of it's homosexual protagonist is interesting set against the backdrop of contemporary 1950's society.
It is this portrayal of the homosexual Tom Ripley (Matt Damon) that carries the film through it's creepy and twisted narrative. He often does not get the credit other actors do, but Damon is very talented as an actor and shows it in this role. The wide range on display in the role of Ripley is mesmerizing. At times he is creepy and scary, at others boyish and lost, someone you want to comfort. And when the role calls for his homosexuality to take the forefront, Damon brings passion and tenderness to it, all while being alone and confused, treading that very fine line that exists for a closeted homosexual. Their is a beauty to these moments, quite like those in Brokeback Mountain (Ang Lee, 2005) that supersede being straight or gay but speak of love.
These moments for Damon are re-enforced by the performances of a stellar cast. Jude Law is enticing. He plays the role of Dickie with charm and panache but with an underlying fire. Not all is quite right with Dickie, a reflection of the attraction between him and Ripley. Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett, Jack Davenport and Philip Seymour Hoffman are all amazing in their respective roles. What is most striking watching this film twelve years after it's release is how amazing of a cast they put together as well as how young they looked in the film. Hell, they all look like children! Young and innocent, until damaged and sullied by the actions of Ripley.
This damaging of youth is counterbalanced by some beautiful technical work and overall direction by Anthony Minghella. The cinematography is breathtaking, capturing a Europe post war in pristine condition. One shot in particular is crafted elegant hand simply says so much. After Ripley kills Dickie, the camera lingers in a long shot as you see Ripley standing alone on the boat. The shimmering of the ocean, bright blue with sparkling lights beaming off the water is so beautiful, so captivating and a perfect dichotomy for the brutal action that just took place.
Also providing perfect dichotomy to the violent and sociopathic theme to the narrative is beautiful and sumptuous art direction and production design. The costumes design is so very European. They capture the essence of elegant European clothing all while keeping in the moment of the films setting. The costuming for Dickie in particular is done rather well. And the set decoration is extensively down very well. Each apartment of every character in the film is well done, capturing time and setting perfectly.
The most perfect aspect of the film is in it's romanticization of Europe, not only in past setting but in overall outlook on life and how to live it. The role of Ripley is a great portrait of being American as the role of Dickie shows that which we as Americans do not have when compared to Europeans. There is also an elegance and charm to all things European, dealing with all aspects of their lives. The architecture, the history, the age of everything, it all is such a huge dichotomy to the newness and youth of America.
Definitely a great film, and a very beautiful one!
It is this portrayal of the homosexual Tom Ripley (Matt Damon) that carries the film through it's creepy and twisted narrative. He often does not get the credit other actors do, but Damon is very talented as an actor and shows it in this role. The wide range on display in the role of Ripley is mesmerizing. At times he is creepy and scary, at others boyish and lost, someone you want to comfort. And when the role calls for his homosexuality to take the forefront, Damon brings passion and tenderness to it, all while being alone and confused, treading that very fine line that exists for a closeted homosexual. Their is a beauty to these moments, quite like those in Brokeback Mountain (Ang Lee, 2005) that supersede being straight or gay but speak of love.
These moments for Damon are re-enforced by the performances of a stellar cast. Jude Law is enticing. He plays the role of Dickie with charm and panache but with an underlying fire. Not all is quite right with Dickie, a reflection of the attraction between him and Ripley. Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett, Jack Davenport and Philip Seymour Hoffman are all amazing in their respective roles. What is most striking watching this film twelve years after it's release is how amazing of a cast they put together as well as how young they looked in the film. Hell, they all look like children! Young and innocent, until damaged and sullied by the actions of Ripley.
This damaging of youth is counterbalanced by some beautiful technical work and overall direction by Anthony Minghella. The cinematography is breathtaking, capturing a Europe post war in pristine condition. One shot in particular is crafted elegant hand simply says so much. After Ripley kills Dickie, the camera lingers in a long shot as you see Ripley standing alone on the boat. The shimmering of the ocean, bright blue with sparkling lights beaming off the water is so beautiful, so captivating and a perfect dichotomy for the brutal action that just took place.
Also providing perfect dichotomy to the violent and sociopathic theme to the narrative is beautiful and sumptuous art direction and production design. The costumes design is so very European. They capture the essence of elegant European clothing all while keeping in the moment of the films setting. The costuming for Dickie in particular is done rather well. And the set decoration is extensively down very well. Each apartment of every character in the film is well done, capturing time and setting perfectly.
The most perfect aspect of the film is in it's romanticization of Europe, not only in past setting but in overall outlook on life and how to live it. The role of Ripley is a great portrait of being American as the role of Dickie shows that which we as Americans do not have when compared to Europeans. There is also an elegance and charm to all things European, dealing with all aspects of their lives. The architecture, the history, the age of everything, it all is such a huge dichotomy to the newness and youth of America.
Definitely a great film, and a very beautiful one!
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Larry Crowne (Tom Hanks, 2011)
Sometimes a trailer is good enough to get you to go see a film even when you think it might be bad. Often it's the stars that draw you in and you see a film even when you hear bad things about it. Such is the case with Larry Crowne (Tom Hanks, 2011). I had seen the trailer and while the film showed promise, I was afraid it would be that film where everything good or funny resides in the trailer. I had also gotten some inkling that the film wasn't getting good reviews. That said, I like Tom Hanks and I LOVE Julia Roberts, and the the premise looked good so I went. My initial reaction was that I liked the film, but as a few days has passed I really am starting to feel that the film lacked resonance and could have made a stronger statement. I keep thinking back to Up in the Air (Jason Reitman, 2009) and remembering how profound and socially relevant that film was and realizing they missed a special opportunity with Larry Crowne.
Larry Crowne is topically relevant in today's society. The film deals with our downsized economy and the effects that economy has had on all of us as individuals. Everyone has had to re-prioritize their lives, whether it be spending less, getting laid off and finding a new job or maybe going back to school for more education. In Larry Crowne (Tom Hanks) we have a man facing all of these things. At the start of the film Crowne is laid off and this shakes up his world. He has trouble dealing with losing his job and cannot find a replacement. This starts Crowne down a path of change and enlightenment. He starts downsizing his life helping to save money. As he fills his gas tank and the cost rises over $70 who in the audience doesn't feel that pain? So, in comes a more affordable Vespa. Crowne signs up at the local JC, ostensibly to get educated but truly starting the evolvement of his character. Finally he gets a job, not a glamorous one, but one that pays the bills. In this respect the character comes full circle but here resides a problem with the narrative. Larry Crowne's path is one we all know quite well, yet is he (and by extension, us the audience) learning anything?
The path that Crowne takes is an interesting one to me and I wonder if many (or anyone) will take this same message home with them. In the film Crowne loses his job and home. Looking deeper, the man truly is walking dead. He is divorced, has no real friends or meaningful relationships. He is uneducated and at the time of his being laid off, not far from being out on the streets. On his journey, he gets educated. He downsizes his life and in so doing allows a lesser paying job to suffice when it comes to paying his bills. All this happens while he meets and starts relationships with true friends and of course discovers love again. What I question about us, the audience is what exactly we shall take from this film? Many of us are in the same position that Larry Crowne was in right as he was to be fired. How many of us could survive such a turn of events that Crowne does? This is obviously a much larger question, but just because of it's depth and complexity doesn't mean it should be overlooked.
This brings me to one of the stronger points made within the narrative. The journey that Crowne takes is one that many of us could take, but not all. There also is the journey that Talia (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) takes. She already is in college and befriends Crowne upon his arrival. She helps to guide Crowne through the pitfalls that beset him as he tries to navigate his way through a life he never knew. Yet soon her character realizes that the traditional path isn't for her. She drops out of college and starts her own business. This is a powerful statement. Crowne is laid off because he has NO education and this serves as the catalyst into his life evolving. Yet here within the same narrative the exact opposite also occurs. She eschews college and education because she knows what works for her. I think what the film says so magnificently is that we all must find our own paths, particularly in today's world. This makes the narrative extremely effective.
The narrative is quality throughout. There is intelligence to it, particularly in the dialogue of Mercedes Tainot (Julia Roberts). In fact the writing and dialogue throughout the film is crisp and witty. The cinematography and editing were fresh and interesting, nothing overly mind-blowing but at the same time not the usual routine things you see in so many films.
My biggest issue with the film resides in two things primarily. First, everything falls too easily in place for Larry Crowne. He seemingly skips from place to place, slowly conquering all on his road of discovery. This is how the film doesn't hold up when compared to Up in the Air. And this is where the second problem resides. There is a lack of character development for every character within the film that is unnerving and serves to weaken the overall narrative. Up in the Air had fully fleshed out characters and they all came full circle. In Larry Crowne, there is not any explanation given whatsoever to what makes Mercedes tick. I mentioned that Crowne conquers everything in his path quite easily, and his meshing with all of his fellow students, while certainly plausible shows no effort. I guess what I mean to say is ultimately I am disappointed because this film, had it been taken a little more seriously could have been great and powerful. And maybe they weren't going for that, so maybe I'm off base. Still, the film is enjoyable, really fun at times and Julia looks good as always. I'd watch it again I'm just not sure it'll be one I watch repeatedly.
Larry Crowne is topically relevant in today's society. The film deals with our downsized economy and the effects that economy has had on all of us as individuals. Everyone has had to re-prioritize their lives, whether it be spending less, getting laid off and finding a new job or maybe going back to school for more education. In Larry Crowne (Tom Hanks) we have a man facing all of these things. At the start of the film Crowne is laid off and this shakes up his world. He has trouble dealing with losing his job and cannot find a replacement. This starts Crowne down a path of change and enlightenment. He starts downsizing his life helping to save money. As he fills his gas tank and the cost rises over $70 who in the audience doesn't feel that pain? So, in comes a more affordable Vespa. Crowne signs up at the local JC, ostensibly to get educated but truly starting the evolvement of his character. Finally he gets a job, not a glamorous one, but one that pays the bills. In this respect the character comes full circle but here resides a problem with the narrative. Larry Crowne's path is one we all know quite well, yet is he (and by extension, us the audience) learning anything?
The path that Crowne takes is an interesting one to me and I wonder if many (or anyone) will take this same message home with them. In the film Crowne loses his job and home. Looking deeper, the man truly is walking dead. He is divorced, has no real friends or meaningful relationships. He is uneducated and at the time of his being laid off, not far from being out on the streets. On his journey, he gets educated. He downsizes his life and in so doing allows a lesser paying job to suffice when it comes to paying his bills. All this happens while he meets and starts relationships with true friends and of course discovers love again. What I question about us, the audience is what exactly we shall take from this film? Many of us are in the same position that Larry Crowne was in right as he was to be fired. How many of us could survive such a turn of events that Crowne does? This is obviously a much larger question, but just because of it's depth and complexity doesn't mean it should be overlooked.
This brings me to one of the stronger points made within the narrative. The journey that Crowne takes is one that many of us could take, but not all. There also is the journey that Talia (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) takes. She already is in college and befriends Crowne upon his arrival. She helps to guide Crowne through the pitfalls that beset him as he tries to navigate his way through a life he never knew. Yet soon her character realizes that the traditional path isn't for her. She drops out of college and starts her own business. This is a powerful statement. Crowne is laid off because he has NO education and this serves as the catalyst into his life evolving. Yet here within the same narrative the exact opposite also occurs. She eschews college and education because she knows what works for her. I think what the film says so magnificently is that we all must find our own paths, particularly in today's world. This makes the narrative extremely effective.
The narrative is quality throughout. There is intelligence to it, particularly in the dialogue of Mercedes Tainot (Julia Roberts). In fact the writing and dialogue throughout the film is crisp and witty. The cinematography and editing were fresh and interesting, nothing overly mind-blowing but at the same time not the usual routine things you see in so many films.
My biggest issue with the film resides in two things primarily. First, everything falls too easily in place for Larry Crowne. He seemingly skips from place to place, slowly conquering all on his road of discovery. This is how the film doesn't hold up when compared to Up in the Air. And this is where the second problem resides. There is a lack of character development for every character within the film that is unnerving and serves to weaken the overall narrative. Up in the Air had fully fleshed out characters and they all came full circle. In Larry Crowne, there is not any explanation given whatsoever to what makes Mercedes tick. I mentioned that Crowne conquers everything in his path quite easily, and his meshing with all of his fellow students, while certainly plausible shows no effort. I guess what I mean to say is ultimately I am disappointed because this film, had it been taken a little more seriously could have been great and powerful. And maybe they weren't going for that, so maybe I'm off base. Still, the film is enjoyable, really fun at times and Julia looks good as always. I'd watch it again I'm just not sure it'll be one I watch repeatedly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)