"Everything is as it should be."

                                                                                  - Benjamin Purcell Morris

 

 

© all material on this website is written by Michael McCaffrey, is copyrighted, and may not be republished without consent

Follow me on Twitter: Michael McCaffrey @MPMActingCo

Cake : A Review

****THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ZERO SPOILERS!!! THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!!!****

Cake, directed by Daniel Barnz and written by Patrick Tobin, stars Jennifer Aniston as Claire Bennett, a woman struggling with chronic physical and emotional pain. The film also features Sam Worthington, Anna Kendrick and Adriana Baraza in supporting roles.

The film follows the trials and tribulations Claire encounters as she seeks to quell her physical pain with ill-gotten pain meds, and her emotional pain with anything she can think of, whether it be sleeping with the pool boy or not sleeping with Sam Worthington.

Cake is the type of film designed to try and win awards. Recently, there has been a heavy marketing push for Jennifer Aniston to receive various acting awards for her performance. In fact, I received a DVD from the producers just the other day, encouraging me to vote for Aniston for a best actress Screen Actors Guild award. They were cutting it pretty close as the voting ends this coming Friday. Regardless of that, the film is nowhere near worthy of awards attention, and neither is Aniston's performance. 

Jennifer Aniston tries to sully herself up as Claire Bennett, by not being so beautiful (no easy task), and covering herself in scars and wearing frumpy clothes. Sadly though, Aniston never fully commits to the character's internals, the emotional and psychological, only her externals, her appearance, which makes the performance feel manufactured, disingenuous and ultimately hollow. I like Jennifer Aniston. I think she is charming, gorgeous and her presence in popular culture is greatly appreciated, but the cold hard reality is that Aniston, at her very best, is nothing more than an average actress. That is not to diminish her great work and success on Friends. She was fantastic on Friends, but her artistic growth seems to have been stunted by her overwhelming success on that iconic show. I know it isn't fair, but it is true, that Friends is the albatross around Aniston's acting neck and she is unable to liberate herself from it. She cannot escape the clutches of Rachel Green, the seminal character she so excelled at, maybe because that portrayal was so close to who she really was, or maybe because she just got Rachel Green so ingrained into her artists self, that it is all she is able to do, it has become her default setting, which is not uncommon when you play the same character for a decade. In Cake, Aniston's Claire Bennett is not a unique and original creation, it is Rachel Green with a bad back and a pill habit.

Cake fails to be compelling not just because the performance at it's center isn't riveting, it has other major problems as well. The film falls flat in numerous areas, story and the characters, for instance, feel so contrived and forced, that the movie is never able to gather any dramatic momentum, and thus lurches from one scene to the next without any emotional coherence. The director, Daniel Barnz, can't seem to make up his mind as to what Cake is, is it a dark character study of a woman spiraling into the abyss, or is it a dramedy about a smart-alecky lady who sasses her way to healing? By not choosing one, Barnz chooses neither, and the film staggers around looking for something to grasp onto, but the script, the directing and the acting are never strong enough to provide a stable ground for it to stand on.

In conclusion, Cake is a missed opportunity for everyone involved. The film seems to want to please everyone and ended up not pleasing anyone. So, to you gentle reader, I do declare…you can have your Cake…and eat mine too, because I sure as hell don't want it.

© 2015

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , WHIPLASH , BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) , FOXCATCHER , WILD , AMERICAN SNIPER , A MOST VIOLENT YEAR , THE IMITATION GAME , NIGHTCRAWLER , STILL ALICE , INHERENT VICE , SELMA , MR. TURNER .

Mr. Turner : A Review

****WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS!!! THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER WARNING!!****

 

Mr. Turner, written and directed by Mike Leigh, tells the story of the career and life of famed British artist J.M.W. Turner. Timothy Spall stars as the enigmatic painter, known for his epic seascapes and landscapes, whose life spanned from 1775 to 1851.

Mr. Turner is an odd film about an odd man. Turner is at times eccentric, at other times, eccentrically conventional. His personal life, from his uniquely inappropriate relationship with his housekeeper, to his cold, distant and publicly unacknowledged relationship with his two children and their mother, and eventually to his hidden yet seemingly traditional relationship with a twice widowed inn-keeper, is as convoluted as it is secretive. Turner compartmentalizes his life to such a degree that he actually lives multiple lives concurrently and rarely, if ever, do they intertwine or even know the other exists. Turner's undoubtedly intricate emotional life is in direct contrast to his great works of art, sprawling land and seascapes. It is from his internal, emotional and personal tumult that Turner is able to capture such vast, epic scenes in his paintings, yet fills them with a meticulously exact humanity.

There is a problem with Mr. Turner, and it is a pretty simple one, the structure of the story is unsound which ultimately leaves the film unsatisfying in a dramatic and storytelling sense. The story is just not clear cut enough dramatically for the film to ultimately be a successful storytelling venture. The narrative never truly takes hold, nor does the personal drama, so we are left with just a tale about a man, albeit a very interesting and brilliant one, and his march through life. The script needed to be more definite and clear cut in it's dramatic framework in order to make the story emotionally gratifying for viewers. That does not mean it has to have a happy ending, not by any means, but it does mean the story must have a more defined purpose and arch in order for Turner's journey to feel dramatically imperative, even if it ends with an ambiguous tragedy, as all life does.

That is not to say I didn't enjoy Mr. Turner, quite the contrary. Mr. Turner is without question, one of the most visually stunning films I have seen in recent years. Cinematographer Dick Pope, who is nominated for an Academy Award for his work, is truly the star of the film. With every single scene in Mr. Turner, you could stop the projector and put a frame around the picture on screen and hang it in any of the great museums of the world. It is one masterpiece after another with Pope's cinematography, and it is obviously a major part of the film and the telling of the story of Turner and his own visual genius. Even when the story of Mr. Turner was less than thrilling, Pope's cinematography was always breathtakingly sensational and more than worthy of the price of admission.

The other aspect of the film I enjoyed was Timothy Spall's performance as Turner. Spall is always a very intriguing actor, and his work here is full of an internal vitality and precision that is captivating to watch. Mr. Turner is really, in terms of narrative, just a character study, but Spall's attention to emotional detail and specificity of intention creates an, at times poignant, at times distressing, but always compelling, portrait. The supporting actors are all so superb that I cannot single just one out, their work was outstanding across the board. Even the background actors do truly exemplary work with a focused attention to detail which is of great benefit to the film.

Director Mike Leigh, who has seven much-deserved Oscar nominations to his name for previous films, such as Vera Drake and Secrets and Lies, is well known for his unique actor-centric approach to filmmaking. He is an unconventional filmmaker who successfully makes unconventional films. Mr. Turner feels like it is either a little too conventionally unconventional, or a little too unconventionally conventional to be considered a complete artistic success. It is, like most of Mike Leigh's films, a character study, but thanks to cinematographer Dick Pope, it is a visually lush character study, with Timothy Spall's well crafted performance at it's center. If you are a fan of Mike Leigh's previous films, you will appreciate this one, maybe not as much as Vera Drake or Secrets and Lies, but you will 'enjoy' it nonetheless. If you are not a fan of Mike Leigh, this might not be the film for you, but you could always just go to marvel at the beauty of both J.M.W. Turner's and Dick Pope's visual genius, you won't be disappointed.

© 2015

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , WHIPLASH , BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) , FOXCATCHER , WILD , AMERICAN SNIPER , A MOST VIOLENT YEAR , THE IMITATION GAME , NIGHTCRAWLER , STILL ALICE , INHERENT VICE , SELMA , CAKE .

Selma : A Review

****THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS!!! THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER ALERT!!!****

Selma, directed by Ava DuVernay and written by Paul Webb, is the story of the events leading up to, and including, the historic civil rights march led by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery, Alabama in 1965.

The film stars David Oyelowo as Martin Luther King, with Carmen Ejogo as Coretta Scott King, Tom Wilkinson as President Lydon Johnson, Tim Roth as Alabama Governor George Wallace and Stephen James as John Lewis, to name just a few of the actors in featured supporting roles.

I admit that I was not all that excited to see Selma, and no, that does not mean I am a racist, but it does mean that I am a cynical cinephile. The reason I was trepidatious about seeing it is because studio films about civil rights, or racial issues can sometimes be predictable, heavy-handed, poorly made and drenched in sentimentality. My cynicism is hard earned, for example, in the last few years I had to sit through the absolutely dreadful Lee Daniel's The Butler and Spielberg's overbearing Lincoln (which are studio films, unlike two independent films of similar genres, 12 Years a Slave and Fruitvale Station, both excellent films). Lincoln and The Butler were so ham-handed as to be cringe-worthy and embarrassingly laughable. So I assumed that Selma would be just another poorly executed piece of propaganda, a left wing version of the right wing propaganda of American Sniper. I have to say, after seeing Selma, I was very pleasantly surprised, it was considerably better than I thought it would be. Now, to be clear, Selma isn't a great movie, for instance, it won't make my top ten of the year, but it is a well-made film and is head and shoulders above recent studio attempts to dramatically re-tell the story of the civil rights struggle in cinema. 

The main reason that Selma exceeded my low expectations was the performance of David Oyolowo as Martin Luther King, Jr. In some films of note this year, we have seen performances that were more akin to mimicry than to acting, The Theory of Everything as an example. Playing MLK is a big juicy trap for an actor to embrace only the distinct external appearance of King and avoid the critical internal life of the man. Oyolowo deftly avoids the imitation trap. His King is an actual person, grounded and genuine. While the script, and the film, do keep pushing for a version of MLK as Saint Martin, Oyolowo is able to keep King's feet on the ground and his halo in his back pocket for the most part. Oyolowo doesn't imitate MLK, he approximates him, his speech, his appearance, his demeanor. Oyolowo's acting is the thing that keeps Selma from veering off into the land of heavy handed sentimentality. Yes, there is still a streak of sentimentality in the film, but it is considerably muted by Oyolowo's great work.

There are two truly superb scenes in Selma. The first involves King and his wife Coretta, played by Carmen Ejogo. In the scene, Selma does something that sets it apart from other films about MLK, it not only acknowledges his philandering, but holds him to account for it. Yes, more could have been explored on this topic, but the reality is, this is not a straight up MLK bio-pic, but rather MLK is the lead character in the story of the Selma civil rights struggle. The scene, in which Coretta plays an audiotape sent to her by the FBI of MLK having sex with another woman, is exceedingly well done. In it, we see King as we have never seen him before...he is ashamed. Ashamed of himself, of his behavior, of his weakness and of his betrayal of his wife. Shame is something that is difficult to play subtly, but Oyolowo masterfully embodies the depth of King's shame without ever having to speak. You see his energy and breathing change, his posture shift, his eyes slightly downward, his shame is tangible, the tension in the scene and their marriage is palpable. This scene alone elevates Selma from an everyday 'issues' movie to an authentic and intimate look at actual, real people struggling with genuine issues, both political and domestic. Oyolowo's and Ejogo's work in this scene brings an honest humanity to Selma that resonates through the rest of the film.

The second artistically crucial scene involves President Johnson, played by Tom Wilkinson, and Alabama Governor George Wallace, played by Tim Roth. In the scene, LBJ is pushing Wallace to give up his harsh racist positions and give the black community the voting rights MLK is demanding. What makes this scene so powerful is that Roth's Wallace is not a raving, mad, foaming at the mouth, wild-eyed, lunatic. Roth makes Wallace a  logical, rational, reasonable man, who simply will not budge on his, in his mind, principled stance. The really interesting thing in the scene is that Wallace is calm and measured as he explains why he won't give blacks the vote in Alabama. He says in essence, that once you give blacks an inch in terms of rights, they will demand a mile. This speech from Wallace is, logical, rational and reasoned, and also unconscionably racist…yet totally prescient and historically correct. As history teaches us, once you actually give people the rights they deserve, they will demand even more of the rights that they deserve, human beings are funny like that. Roth's Wallace is a highlight of the portrayal of southern whites in the film, because he doesn't come across as a one-dimensional moron or redneck, just a principled man whose principles happen to be wrong. The same cannot be said for the other smaller southern white roles, but that is a common fault in films where there are clear-cut good guys and bad guys. Thankfully, Roth avoids stereotyping Wallace like the other southern white characters are stereotyped. The film is much better for both Roth's and Wilkinson's work in it. Nuance can often-times be sacrificed in order to clarify or heighten the drama, but Roth's work as Wallace brought some much needed subtly and restraint, and it is an anchor that helps keep the film from drifting entirely into caricature for all it's white southern characters.

There is a third scene that I wish was in the film but unfortunately wasn't. Malcolm X, played by Nigel Thatch, comes to Selma just weeks before his own assassination, to symbolically put pressure on Wallace to change his position. Malcolm X has a meeting with Coretta King because MLK is in jail. They discuss why he, Malcolm X, is there and what he wants to do. It is never shown but only referenced later, that Malcolm X gives a speech in Selma while King is in jail. I don't know why they didn't show the speech. I think it would have been a great counter point to MLK's non-violence to show Malcolm X embodying the alternative to that approach. I know Selma has a lot of ground it needed to cover, but Malcolm X's speech would have been a worthy addition to the strategic thinking the film is trying to dramatize. 

One other problem with the film, which is nearly fatal, is that Oprah shows up in it. There is absolutely no reason for Oprah to be in this film. None. She is brutally distracting. You aren't thinking she is her character, you are thinking she is Oprah, and you see her trying so hard to act and to let you, the viewer, know she is Oprah and she is acting. This is the second film in a row, Lee Daniel's The Butler being the first, where Oprah plays a woman who strikes a man. I wish Oprah would take the time to learn to act, because she looks so uncomfortable, awkward and fake when she takes a swings at people, that it is horrifying. I know people love Oprah, but Oprah is having the opposite effect on the films she is in than she is hoping to have. She distracts and undermines the important stories attempting to be told. I encourage Oprah to continue to produce films, but leave the acting to others. I know for a fact that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of women out there who could have played Oprah's part considerably better than she did. I genuinely wish she would give other people the opportunity that she has never earned.

As for actors who do deserve to be there and do excellent work, Stephen James as John Lewis stands out for his really compelling performance. Wendell Pierce as Hosea Williams is also very good. Pierce is an actor that just elevates every single scene he steps into. I loved him in HBO's The Wire and always think it is a good idea to cast him in anything when possible.

Selma is also greatly enhanced by it's visuals. Cinematographer Bradford Young gives the film a distinct texture and optical vibrancy that is all too often missing from these types of films. Too often films of this genre take the easy road and create a flat, dull and stale look for the film (I'm looking at you, Lee Daniel's The Butler!!). Young's work is equally as essential to elevating the film from the mundane to the worthy as David Oyolowo's performance. Bradford Young also did quality work on A Most Violent Year as well this year. I look forward to seeing more of his work in the years to come.

A quick comment on the controversy dealing with potential historical inaccuracies in Selma. Joseph Califano Jr., a former aide to President Lyndon Johnson, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post on December 26, 2014 taking issue with how Selma portrayed his former boss. Cailfano claims that the film falsely portrays LBJ as being at odds with MLK over the voting rights act. I admit that I am not very well read or historically literate on the subject in question. I would encourage you to read Califano's op-ed (LINK), and research the subject and counter-arguments yourself. I cannot speak as to whether the claim of Califano is an issue with the history in the film or an issue with perspective.  What I will say though, is that the temptation to alter history in order to heighten drama, is one that must be overcome. In film, historical events can be shaped to give a narrative more clarity or to give alternative perceptions of historical events, but it should not be altered in order to heighten drama or a character's value. This is a deceptive practice, and it is one clear sign that a film is a piece of propaganda meant to persuade rather than an honest dramatic exploration. Zero Dark Thirty is a great example of a film that simply contorts history in order to make a political point. Zero Dark Thirty was a really insidious piece of government propaganda, and we are all diminished for it having been so well received. At the end of the day, Truth matters, whether we like the truth or not. Bending truth to meet our hopes, whether on film, or in real life, is not a sign of strength, but one of weakness. To be clear, I am not claiming that Selma is historically inaccurate, shamefully I must I plead ignorance on that issue, but what I am saying is that I hope that Selma maintained it's integrity and didn't take the cheap, easy and ultimately deceptive road of distorting history in order to heighten drama. MLK's legacy certainly doesn't need the distortion of history in order to be legitimate and powerful, and it would be an error to manipulate history in order to enhance his already remarkable achievements. 

In conclusion, Selma is much better than I thought it would be, and is worth seeing, if for no other reason than the really magnetic and authentic performance from David Oyolowo. At the end of the day, Selma, like American Sniper, may just be a piece of personal propaganda, but unlike American Sniper, it is an exceedingly well made and finely crafted piece of propaganda.

©2015

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , WHIPLASH , BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) , FOXCATCHER , WILD , AMERICAN SNIPER , A MOST VIOLENT YEAR , THE IMITATION GAME , NIGHTCRAWLER , STILL ALICE , INHERENT VICE , MR. TURNER , CAKE .

 

Inherent Vice : A Review?

****THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!!! THERE ARE NO SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW!!!

Inherent Vice, directed  and written by Paul Thomas Anderson, is an adaptation of the Thomas Pynchon novel of the same name. The film stars Joaquin Phoenix and boasts supporting performances from Josh Brolin, Owen Wilson and Reese Witherspoon among many others.

At this point in writing a review I will usually give a brief synopsis of the film's story. As I hopelessly stare at this ever ravenous and judgmental computer screen, with it's incessant hunger for words, wisdom and insight, I realize I am intellectually barren on this topic, hollow at my core, devoid of even the most primitive capacity to explain the labyrinthine plot of Inherent Vice. I have scoured my brain, even put on the complete Pink Floyd collection in search of inspiration, but to no avail. To paraphrase Ned Flander's beatnik parents on The Simpsons, who didn't know how to discipline young Ned, "I've tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas!"

The revelation that has dawned on me is that this is not really a 'review', but would more accurately be described as a 'viewers guide'.  Inherent Vice is a mystery, wrapped in a riddle, surrounded by rolling papers. I have seen it twice already and it wasn't until well after the second viewing did things start to take shape for me in regards to figuring this film out. What I hope to do in writing this 'guide' is not explain the film to you, I think that is an impossibility, since my experience of the film will most assuredly be different from yours, but instead of explaining, I hope to help prepare you for your experience of the film. 

Inherent Vice is a film that is like a delicious Duncan Hines yellow cake with chocolate frosting, so dense and layered that it can be exquisitely delectable but at the same time down right overwhelming. The film is really three layers/films in one, if not many more. The key to watching Inherent Vice is to choose which version, or level, of the film you think you will most enjoy and gorge on it from there.  Here are the three scrumptious layers that are most apparent to me. Mmmmmmmm, yummy layers.

1. The Surface Level. On the surface level, Inherent Vice is a stoner mystery comedy. Think Cheech and Chong meet Chinatown. Personally, I don't get into stoner films, they just aren't my cup of tea, or drug of choice, or whatever metaphor you'd be more comfortable with. So I didn't appreciate the film on this level a great deal, although I admit it is pretty fun trying to figure out what is actually real and what is a just a hallucination in the mind of Joaquin Phoenix' character "Doc". A lot of people do dig stoner comedies though, and if you do, you may very well really like Inherent Vice just as an entertaining, fun movie and nothing more. If that is the case with you, then dive right in and enjoy. If not, then head to level two.

2. A Political/Social Commentary. Dig a little deeper with Inherent Vice and you will find a meditation on American corruption, fascism, and the exploitation of the individual and collective psyche by government and corporate interests through marketing and manipulation. On this level, it is all about the co-opting of the sixties liberation and freedom movements, both personal and political, by the establishment. As you watch, take note of how nothing is ever what it seems on the surface, like the dental conglomerate that is really an Asian drug cartel, or the drug-addled-hippie-musician who is really a spy for Nixon. Everything is something other than what it appears, every person and every group has a hidden nefarious motive at the core of their actions. So, don't have a freak out man!! Remember...paranoia is just a heightened sense of awareness!!

Level two is also riddled with political and social symbolism. As a prime example of level two symbolism, take note of one scene as an example,  in which Josh Brolin's "Bigfoot" character, the symbol of the establishment, kicks in Doc's door and then gobbles down marijuana by the handful as an intimidating show of power, which is really an allegory for the usurping of marijuana culture by the establishment in the form of legalization. Weed is now 'officially' integrated, and by being so legitimized, it loses it's mysterious power. Weed has now been neutered as a political statement and muted as a sacrament for the counter-culture and a symbol of their anti-authoritarianism and rebelliousness.

If you have four hours to kill (in one hour increments)… a really great primer on the exploitation of the individual and collective psyche by those in power, and how they manipulate through marketing, is a series of documentaries from the BBC titled, The Century of the Self. It is about Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays and his creation of of the public relations industry. It is long, but it is a truly great documentary, and it really lays the groundwork for understanding the massive manipulation that unfolds on level two of Inherent Vice, and in our actual lives to this day.  Here is a link…Century of the Self. 

3. A Jungian Psychological Exploration. On level three the story of Inherent Vice is really the tale of the spiritual/psychological quest for wholeness and reunification with the Self by the bringing together of the opposites. Ok, this might be the least apparent and most inaccessible level of the three described, but I found it the most interesting. The way to understand this is to see all of the characters in the story as parts of Doc's psyche. Doc, the long haired, counter-culture hippie, and Josh Brolin's "Bigfoot", the flat-topped-square-establishmentarian, are symbolic opposites of the same coin, Doc's psyche. Shasta, Doc's ex-girlfriend, represents the Anima (feminine power) and Doc the Animus (male), with Doc trying to re-connect with the anima in order to be complete and whole. Also notice the other opposites that come together, Nazis and Jews, the Black Guerrilla Family and the Aryan Brotherhood, Nixonites and hippies, etc. Another thing to keep an eye out for are the religious/spiritual symbolism, including the Christs with Uzis (no, that is not a misprint), and the Buddhas, both gatekeepers and guardians that keep Owen Wilson's character, and Mickey "Wolfmann" mentally, emotionally and psychologically hostage.

The great symbol of wholeness in the film is hiding in plain sight. It is...of all things…pizza!! Trust me, when you see pizza or hear the word pizza, pay attention. Pizza is round and is the symbol of wholeness, so when Doc, or the other characters whom are symbolic parts of his psyche, are looking for, ordering, or eating pizza, they are really searching for wholeness and reunification with the Self. Thus the eating of pizza represents the integrating of wholeness and through this synthesis with wholeness, they, and the part of Doc's psyche they personify, are healed. This is the story of level three, Doc's quest for re-connection with Self and wholeness. 

Thus ends the 'viewers guide'. Those are just some of the ways you can choose to look at the film. You will probably find much more, as the film speaks to people in the language that they can hear. I never read the Thomas Pynchon book the film is based on, so readers of that book might have a greater understanding and appreciation for the film on every level. 

Just a few quick final notes on some of the specifics of the film. First the acting. Joaquin Phoenix plays the lead role of Doc, and he is his usual stellar self. Phoenix' work in the last few years, especially his previous work with P.T. Anderson in The Master, has been so ingeniously brilliant it is beyond description as merely the craft of 'acting'. Phoenix' artistry is so rare and original that I cannot compare him to any other actor we've ever seen, but rather to another revolutionary artist from another form, Pablo Picasso.  Phoenix is so far out there in terms of what he brings to a role, his authenticity, originality and inventiveness that he can only be described as some sort of Picasso-esque mad genius. But beyond his obvious transcendent talent, he also brings an immense understanding and mastery of his craft and a painstakingly meticulous specificity to the details of his work. Joaquin Phoenix is as unique a talent as we have in the acting world, and he is at the height of his powers. We should all consider ourselves blessed to get to watch his work.

Josh Brolin has a supporting role and is as good as he's ever been. Brolin devours the role of "Bigfoot" like his character "Bigfoot" devours that platter of weed, or his Japanese pancakes ("MOTO PANACAKU!!"...Oh wow man, I just realized, just now, that a pancake is another round food symbol of wholeness!! Bigfoot is demanding, in the language of the east, more servings of wholeness to integrate!! Wholeness prepared and delivered by a man of the East!! Whoa….). Brolin brings an unwavering focus and intensity to "Bigfoot", which plays as both frightening and funny. Brolin can be an underrated actor, but here he shows he is the real deal when in the right role, and his performance is a key part in making Inherent Vice work.

Robert Elswit is the cinematographer on Inherent Vice, and his work is dazzling. Elswit has worked on many of P.T. Anderson's films, and his work is always exquisite, and Inherent Vice is no exception. This is the second film of note for Elswit this year, his cinematography on Nightstalker is stunning as well. It is without question that Elswit deserves not only an Oscar nomination but an Oscar win for his work in either Nightstalker or Inherent Vice. Elswit, like Phoenix, is another artist at the top of his game.

And there you have some random, scattered thoughts on the enigmatic Inherent Vice.  I can honestly tell you that I am not sure which parts of this 'review/guide' were real, and which were simply entertaining hallucinations, but I guess you'll figure that all out when you see the movie for yourself. 

I do hope you find the viewer's guide useful, but remember, those are just some of the ways to watch the film. You will probably find much more, as the film speaks to people in the language with which they can hear it, and that is it's greatest strength and a tribute to the mastery of director Paul Thomas Anderson. Anderson is the great filmmaker of our time, and Inherent Vice is a tribute to his complexity and the intricacy of his work. I found the film to be fascinating, I think you may too.

© 2015

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , WHIPLASH , BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) , FOXCATCHER , WILD , AMERICAN SNIPER , A MOST VIOLENT YEAR , THE IMITATION GAME , NIGHTCRAWLER , STILL ALICE , SELMA , MR. TURNER , CAKE .

 

Still Alice : A Review

****THIS REVIEW CONTAINS NO SPOILERS!!! THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!!!****

Still Alice, written and directed by Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland, is the story of Alice (Julianne Moore), a Columbia University linguistics professor among the best in the world in her field, who is stricken with early onset Alzheimer's disease. The film is based on the 2007 novel, "Still Alice", by Lisa Genova.

Still Alice is a pretty standard, by-the-book, 'disease' movie, the likes of which can be seen most any night of the week on cable television, with one glaring exception though, the spectacular performance of Julianne Moore. Moore's performance is meticulous, specific and forceful, all the while deftly avoiding the ever present danger of sentimentality that can so often derails actors taking on these sorts of roles.

Julianne Moore is one of the great actresses of our time. A look at her work over the last twenty years reveals Moore to be a master craftswoman and major talent. Her string of truly great and courageous performances starts in 1993 with Short Cuts and includes but is not limited to, her roles in Safe, Boogie Nights, The End of the Affair, Magnolia, The Hours, A Single Man, The Kids are Alright and finally this year with Still Alice. Moore's only missteps in her career have come about by being swayed by the siren's call of movie stardom. Whenever she has made the leap for the brass ring of being a 'star', she has seemed out of place. Julianne Moore is an actress, one of the best there is, and she needs to stay in the 'art house' in order for her to make the most of her exceptional talent.

Kristen Stewart has a supporting role as one of Alice's daughter's. It was good to see Stewart back on the road to recovery from those awful Twilight movies. I remember the first time I ever saw Stewart on screen, it was in Into the Wild, directed by Sean Penn. Stewart played a teen girl who befriends and tries to seduce the main protagonist Chris played by Emile Hirsch. Stewart just lit up the screen in every scene she inhabited. She had a charisma and magnetism to her that was unmistakable. In the scene where she tries to convince Chris to sleep with her, her sexual yearning was palpable and her presence combustible. I thought she had big things ahead of her as an actress and artist. Then Twilight happened. She can't be faulted for taking the gig and the money, but the type of fame that comes along with a film like that can be death to an actress. Escaping the shadow of Twilight will be no easy task, as audiences have long memories and short attention spans and critics can be a fickle and unforgiving bunch. But Stewart's work in Still Alice seems like a step in the right direction on the road to artistic redemption. I think if she can do more supporting roles, in films like this, films set in the real world, as opposed to imaginary ones filled with vampires, werwolves and the like, she will stand a fighting chance to really become an actress of note. She has some great advantages going for her, she is young, she is beautiful,  and she does have talent, so I wouldn't bet against her, but she must avoid the blockbuster like the plague, and take up permanent residence in the art house.

Speaking of art, let's talk about the art and craft of acting for a moment. Playing someone with a disease of the mind is a road fraught with artistic peril. All too often actors (or directors) end up focusing on the external and trying to engender pity in the audience instead of the internal which requires embodying a character and letting audience opinions fall where they may. Another danger of the external is for an actor to get showy when portraying a mental illness, dementia or Alzheimer's character. The key to playing characters with these sorts of issues is to understand that all humans are rational thinking beings, even when they appear to act irrationally. The difference between a person acting rationally and irrationally is based on external judgement, not internal judgement. Irrational behavior is simply the result of a person's inability to perceive the world or gather information like a 'normal' person would. No one decides or chooses to act irrationally. So someone with a mental illness for example, is using logic, reason and rational thought to make decisions, it is just that their perceptions and information gathering are skewed by their illness and so their actions and decisions are based on faulty or incomplete evidence. The way to play this is to see the world from the characters perspective, not the external one we live everyday, and to stay grounded in the character's reality and be specific in intention and action. This approach helps to avoid the common problem of an actor depicting a mentally ill/brain damaged/cognitively disabled character as flighty or distracted. A great example of how to do this is Cate Blanchett's performance in her Oscar winning performance in Blue Jasmine. Her train of thought is out of sync with the rest of the world, but it isn't internally illogical, in fact it makes perfect sense to her, and it isn't distracted at all, it has a laser-like focus but just not on what everyone else is focused on.

I have worked with many actors trying to figure out these 'mentally ill' roles, and the key to unlocking them has always been clarity of thought, not obscurity of thought. This may seem counter intuitive, but it is the key to getting inside the mind of someone who isn't 'thinking right' according to the outside world. Once you can create order, logic and reasoning that fits with the internal perceptions and world view of the 'mentally ill/cognitively disabled' character, then you've created a specific, detailed and actual human being, grounded and real, and not a caricature, generalization or approximation. 

Mental illness/dementia/Alzheimer's patients are not vacant as much as they may appear to be, quite the opposite actually. Julianne Moore's Alice actually describes the internal process of Alzheimer's in the film, when she says the words are right in front of her but she can't quite grasp them. This is Alzheimer's as an internally active searching or reaching for thoughts and words, not a passive vacancy and deterioration. This is a way to fill this type of character, by filling their apparent mental void with a distinct use of their senses. For instance, how does the character try and remember? Do they use their internal sight, like Moore's description of 'seeing' the words in front of her? Do they try and listen for the words or clues? Or are they tactile, an example of which could be Moore's description of the impulse to try and 'reach out and grasp them'? Once you discover the dominant sense associated with remembering, be it sight, sound, touch or in some cases a combination of them all, then you can build internal associations that sufficiently animate the void in cognitive recognition. Combining techniques like this, and the previously mentioned clarity of thought, specific focus and intention, and the understanding of the internal order, logic and reason of a character are the ways to create a genuine and memorable character who suffers from any of these horrific diseases. This is what Julianne Moore does so skillfully in Still Alice. Both Moore's work in Still Alice and Blanchett's in Blue Jasmine are master classes in this approach to playing the mentally ill/cognitively impaired character, and every actor should study them closely.

You may think this is a lot of insider acting technique mumbo jumbo that has no application for any 'normal' person who isn't an actor, aspiring or otherwise. I think this may not be entirely true. These acting techniques are just an approach used to try and understand another human being different from ourselves. This 'other' has a radically different perception, perspective and understanding of the world than anything we have probably ever experienced. Being able to find understanding and empathize with them, and not just sympathize for them, is a way to build a connection that bridges all human conditions and conventional communication. Just the attempt to understand the internal logic of the mentally/cognitively ill, is a way to express much needed, and sometimes healing, love and release negative judgements and frustrations. These techniques are a way for the actor to express the humanity of their character, and for the non-actor they can be a way to find our own humanity and embody the compassion that the stricken so desperately need and deserve. 

As for the film Still Alice, it is a pretty average movie albeit one with an exquisitely crafted performance at it's center. If you want to watch a virtuoso acting performance surrounded by a rather mundane film, then Still Alice is the movie for you. If you are an actor, Still Alice is well worth seeing if for no other reason than to witness Julianne Moore, a master craftsperson, skillfully ply her artistry.

© 2015

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , WHIPLASH , BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) , FOXCATCHER , WILD , AMERICAN SNIPER , A MOST VIOLENT YEAR , THE IMITATION GAME , NIGHTCRAWLER , INHERENT VICE , SELMA , MR. TURNER .

 

 

Nightcrawler : A Review

****WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SOME SPOILERS!! CONSIDER THIS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER ALERT!!****

Nightcrawler, written and directed by Dan Gilroy, is the story of Lou Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a socially awkward, morally challenged and fiercely ambitious man who stumbles into a career as a freelance videographer in the seedy world of local television news in Los Angeles.

I had not heard much about Nightcrawler prior to seeing it. I had seen some commercials for it, but hadn't heard very much word of mouth about it. In fact, I thought the film had already come and gone by the time I indifferently sat down to watch it. After seeing it, I am baffled as to why this film hasn't made more of a splash and gotten more buzz around it. I thought it was among the best films of the year.

Jake Gyllenhaal stars as Lou Bloom, and gives one of the performances of the year and undoubtedly one of the best of his career. Gyllenhaal makes Lou Bloom a distinct and exact character, from his unblinking, owl-like eyes, to his unique speech patterns and his disturbingly persistent optimism. Lou Bloom has an uncomfortably intense focus, and will overcome any and all obstacles to achieve his goal, whether that be to get the best video footage, the best story, the most money or sex with the woman he wants. Lou is as bereft of a moral compass as he is of a social one, making him both repulsive yet almost hypnotically irresistible. Gyllenhaal has constructed a gripping character, one that is consistently specific in intention and precise in detail. Gyllenhaal has always done much better in roles that would be defined as 'character roles' as opposed to movie star roles. I hope his excellent work in Nightcrawler is an indication that Gyllenhaal will decide to do more character work in the future and less movie star work.

When we first see Lou Bloom, he is a two-bit thief, stealing metal from construction sights and wristwatches from the guard he overpowers who is protecting that construction sight, an early indication that while he may not look like the typical predator, he most definitely is one, and an audacious one at that. But when, by happenstance, Lou comes across freelance videographers covering a car crash on the freeway, he gets hooked by the intrigue and excitement of that business and decides to dive into it headfirst. His greatest assets as a freelance videographer are his astonishing lack of any ethics, scruples or human compassion, his audacious ambition and his unabashed zeal for the job. Due to these characteristics, Bloom excels in his work and quickly climbs the ladder all the way to the top of the local television freelance videographer world. 

Renee Russo and Riz Ahmed do exemplary work in supporting roles. Russo plays Nina Romina, a producer of a late night local news program who, night after night, Lou Bloom pitches to buy his work. She tells him that "if it bleeds, it leads", so Bloom quickly sets out to shoot the most gruesome footage he can, and builds a professional, and uneasily forced unprofessional, relationship with Romina. Russo brings a world weary savvy and desperation to her character. Romina is, in her own way, a predator as well, feeding on and manipulating the misery in the world to her advantage. She, like many, underestimates Lou Bloom, and her shock when she realizes that she is not the hunter in regards to Bloom, but they prey, is subtly and effectively played.

Riz Ahmed plays Lou Bloom's aptly named videographer 'intern' Rick Carey, a down on his luck, sometimes homeless guy trying to make his way in a rough world. We see Carey be a victim of Bloom's overpowering confidence at first, but then he learns from watching Bloom, and by the time he turns the tables on Bloom we see that he believes he is no longer the fledgling, but is ready to leave the nest. Carey though, as his name suggests, "cares", and proves he doesn't have the heart, or rather, he has too much heart, to be able to beat Lou at his own ruthless game. Ahmed brings a tangible, genuine sensitivity to his character, and his work brings to life a character that could have really been an afterthought in the hands of a less thoughtful actor.

Director Dan Gilroy has been a working screenwriter for years, and Nightcrawler is his first time directing. It is a dynamic debut to say the least. What Gilroy does best is let Gyllenhaal's work drive the narrative, and to neither rush, nor weigh down the story. Gilroy's pacing is pitch-perfect, and there is never a feeling of distraction or wandering in the storytelling. 

Another artist of note working on Nightcrawler is cinematographer Robert Elswit. Elswit's work is simply stellar. The film looks absolutely spectacular. The visuals are striking, and tell a great deal of the story of Lou Bloom, and in turn Los Angeles, all on their own. I am willing to bet that if you watched Nightcrawler with the sound off, you would get just as impressively compelling a film as you did with the sound on. Elswit gives the Los Angeles night a texture and vibrancy that is an essential part of the storytelling, and is as indispensable as Gyllenhaal's performance to the success of the film.

Another pivotal character in Nightcrawler is the city of Los Angeles itself. Gilroy and Elswit shoot from locations in the least cinematically seen parts of the city. They find hidden and mundane little corners of Los Angeles and give them life in an optically striking and dramatically forceful way. In the real world, Los Angeles is a strange city. During the day it is the land of milk and honey, filled with beautiful people and sunshine and brightness. But then the sun falls, and darkness rises. Nighttime in Los Angeles is a dark and uneasy place. The L.A. night is the place where Jim Morrison's The Lizard King reigned supreme, and the Charles Manson's and Richard Ramirez's of the world plied their trade. The L.A. night is the shadow world and it is as dark as the day is light. Gilroy and Elswit perfectly capture and bring this palpable, looming sense of menace to life in Nightcrawler, better than any films in recent memory.

Finally, Nightcrawler is also about the the insidious world of television news. To watch Lou 'bloom' from an amoral low-life thief into an amoral local news freelance video kingpin is as entertaining as it is insightful. Bloom is a fringe character in the world. He is from the most northern outskirts of the San Fernando valley, as far away from Los Angeles as you can be and still say you are from Los Angeles. He has no education but has studied self improvement from the farthest edge of the internet. Thanks to this makeshift schooling, and his predatory instincts, Lou learns the L.A. appearance game quickly, and goes from driving a run down clunker to driving a souped up Mustang in no time. Lou Bloom is symbolic of the charlatan at the heart of all television news personalities, in that he is an empty vessel, comprised of all style and no substance. The real trick in the television news business is to have your style make you appear to have substance, and to have your lack of substance become your trademark style. Bloom, like all top predators, quickly adapts to this. Television news is as far out on the periphery to serious substantial journalism as Lou Bloom's hometown on the northern most reaches of the San Fernando valley is to Los Angeles. The film shows how manufactured and contrived the news is in order to manipulate the public, if for no other reason than to keep them watching and the advertising revenues coming in. Spend even a few minutes watching the empty-headed toxicity on CNN, MSNBC or Fox News and you will quickly realize that national news is just as corrosive and corrupt as the version of local news presented in Nightcrawler. The pernicious and noxious nature of television news is obvious and undeniable to anyone paying even the remotest bit of attention, and Nightcrawler skillfully does us a service in bringing that reality of the newsroom to life.

In conclusion, Nightcrawler is a very layered, riveting and original debut film from writer/director Dan Gilroy, boasting a great performance from Jake Gyllenhaal and stunning visuals from cinematographer Robert Elswit. It is, in my opinion, one of the most finely crafted and most entertaining films of the year, and it is most certainly worth your time.

© 2015

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , WHIPLASH , BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) , FOXCATCHER , WILD , AMERICAN SNIPER , A MOST VIOLENT YEAR , THE IMITATION GAME , STILL ALICE , INHERENT VICE , SELMA , MR. TURNER , CAKE .

A Most Violent Year : A Review

****WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS!! THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER REVIEW!!****

A Most Violent Year, written and directed by J.C. Chandor, is a story of corruption amidst the home heating oil business in and around New York City in 1981, one of the most violent years in the city's history. The protagonists for the film are Abel Morales (Oscar Isaac), an immigrant who has lived the American dream and built up a home heating oil company, and his wife Anna (Jessica Chastain), whose father sold Abel the home heating business he now owns, and who also had some shady organized crime connections.

Due to the great talents involved in the making of this film, with J.C. Chandor directing and Jessica Chastain and Oscar Isaac starring, I was really looking forward to seeing A Most Violent Year. Unfortunately, I was mightily disappointed once I saw it. The main problem with this film is not the acting, or the directing, but rather with the story itself. It is so devoid of any dramatic tension or interest that it feels like the film is perpetually just on the precipice of a dramatic breakthrough or an inciting incident, but that breakthrough or incident never occurs. So we are left just watching things unfold but with no real attachment to the characters or events. The film is dramatically vacant.

Another issue with this film, is that putting 'violent' in the title is so decidedly inaccurate that A Most Violent Year can now be considered one of the most misleading film titles of all time, right alongside The Never Ending Story. The film sets itself up and creates expectations with a title like that. The expectations for viewers are that this is going to be a film about the grittier, darker and nastier aspects of life in the home heating oil business in New York. That expectation is never met, not even in the sense of having Abel avoid the inferno of violence that blazes around him. There isn't really any violence at all, at least not of substance, not to or from Abel or anyone else. There isn't even the true threat of violence, only the possibility of an unspoken threat of a threat of violence.  I am certainly not someone who needs violence and brutality in a film to like it, but what I do need is some drama to drive the story, and violence as a dramatic vehicle was desperately needed here.

In terms of moral decisions and dramatic tension, at the end of the day, Abel is corrupt enough to use illegal money that Anna stole in order to continue his business, but not corrupt enough to use violence. That isn't exactly the most powerful of dramatic choices for a film, nor is it very insightful or informative in terms of giving the film a distinct perspective. This film feels like it is shot just out of range of a much more interesting and better film…like a Goodfellas for example. The film will inevitably, and unfavorably, be compared with Goodfellas. Goodfellas is set in the same time period, has a similar theme, style and relationships, but with a much more interesting story, and oddly enough, is inhabited by more believable people.  A Most Violent Year has compelling actors, and potentially compelling characters, but those characters aren't put into any situations that are remotely compelling.

In terms of the acting, Jessica Chastain is as good an actress as there is on the planet, and her work here is engaging and as always, of high quality, so much so that you ache for the film to be more about her than anyone else. Chastain brings with her a luminosity that radiates through her every moment on screen, as well as a vivid yet subtle skill and craft. The character of Anna seems to be the only character in the entire film who has any 'balls' whatsoever, whether she has to kill a deer or take care of business, she brings a very specific point of view, and makes sure the job gets done. Chastain's Anna is a driving and powerful force to be reckoned with, much like the actress herself and her substantial gifts.  

Oscar Isaac as Abel, doesn't fair quite as well as his co-star. I think one of the major problems with Isaac's performance is not with his obvious talent, but with the script itself. The character of Abel is sort of sold to us as being like Michael Corleone before he gets involved in the family business in The Godfather (Abel even wears a long camel hair coat reminiscent of the one Michael Corleone wears in The Godfather ). But that sort of internal conflict needs a big moment in order for a transformation to take place. A Most Violent Year lacks that dramatic transformation of Abel, he never chooses what life he will live. In order for a true dramatic transformation to occur, the stakes for Abel need to be much higher. It should have been very clear, either choose violence and maintain your business, family and standing in the world, or choose to be a good man and lose everything you worked so hard to get, including your wife and kids. That choice is never clearly proposed in the film and so we get middle of the road choices and lukewarm storytelling. The other thing that The Godfather's Michael Corleone had going for him was that Al Pacino was playing him. Oscar Isaac is a fine actor, but he is not even in the ballpark of an all-time great like Al Pacino. My one thought about Oscar Isaac as an actor, is that I think he isn't quite ready to carry a film like this just yet. That is not to say that he won't be able to at some point, just that he isn't able to do that now. He lacks a certain charisma and power on screen that a role like this demands. He, unlike Chastain (and Pacino), does not have an incandescent inferno raging within him that illuminates his being. He is certainly a very talented guy, no question, but he has an absence of gravitas, which is what a role like Abel so desperately needs. I have no doubt he has many great performances ahead of him, but this is one that was more considerable than he was able to manage at this point in his career. 

In conclusion, A Most Violent Year is a major disappointment, especially considering how much I loved J.C. Chandor's previous two films, All is Lost and and Margin Call. Obviously, I am a huge fan of Chastain's work and thought Isaac was very good in Inside Llewyn Davis. Sadly, in A Most Violent Year, these tremendously gifted pieces didn't come together to make a great, or even good film. With all of that said though, I would classify this film as a noble failure. Noble in that it attempts to be a serious and thoughtful drama, something that is in short supply in cinema these days, and a failure because it needed a much more compelling story and script to take full advantage of the ample talents brought together to make this film.

© 2015

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , WHIPLASH , BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) , FOXCATCHER , WILD , THE IMITATION GAME , AMERICAN SNIPER , NIGHTCRAWLER , STILL ALICE , INHERENT VICE , SELMA , MR. TURNER , CAKE .

The Imitation Game: A Review

****THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS!!! THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER ALERT!!****

The Imitation Game, directed by Morten Tyldum with screenplay by Graham Moore (based on Andrew Hodges book "Alan Turing: The Enigma"), is the story of Alan Turing, a British mathematician who, during world war two, broke the Nazi's secret enigma code which was a major key in the allies winning the war. Adding to the drama of the story is the fact that Turing is a closeted homosexual at a time when homosexuals were persecuted and prosecuted for their sexual orientation.

Benedict Cumberbatch plays the socially inept yet mathematically brilliant Turing. His work here, as always, is consistently solid. Cumberbatch is a very skilled actor, and his portrayal of Turing is finely crafted. Cumberbatch has the very unique ability as an actor, and it is put to good use here, to keep the audience at arm's length yet tantalize them with just enough intimate glances into his character's soul to keep viewers intrigued. His Turing is off-putting yet magnetic, which keeps us rooting for him even when he isn't all that likable. 

Keira Knightley as Turing's co-worker and fiancé, Joan Clarke, is very good in a, not surprisingly, under written role. Clarke's relationship with Turing could have been a goldmine of dramatic intrigue, yet it is never really fleshed out in any meaningful way, which is a disappointment. Knightley has the ability to light up any screen on which she appears, and this film could have used much more of her rather than less.

Mark Strong is one of my favorite actors, and he does his usual superb work as Maj. Gen. Stewart Menzies. I also thought Charles Dance as Commander Alistair Denniston was very good. The Brits can really churn out quality actors, and both Dance and Strong are without question living proof of that. (Speaking of Britishness, this film is so thoroughly and distinctly 'British' that my teeth went crooked watching it!!) As for the other supporting actors, though, they were not as strong, and better performances from them would have lifted the film a bit. 

The most conspicuous thing about this film is that it is painfully 'safe', and it's glaring timidity. It is timid and safe in story, dramatically and in it's direction. The film makes the easy commercial choice in narrative, but dramatically, they bury the lede. We know the allies win the war, what we don't know is what happened to Alan Turing and why. In a postscript, the film tells us Alan Turing committed suicide a year after court ordered chemical castration due to a conviction for a homosexual encounter. It is blatantly obvious to me that the film should have started where it ended. That last year of Turing's life is infinitely more important in terms of drama than all the years he spent cracking the Nazi code. I think the 2009 film A Single Man, starring Colin Firth as a gay man contemplating suicide in 1962, is a great example of what The Imitation Game could have been. The intimacy of that portrait in A Single Man, was astounding, as was Firth's performance. I felt that excruciating intimacy was what was missing from The Imitation Game. One can only imagine how agonizing the final year, never mind the final day, of a man as tormented and tortured as Alan Turing could have been. The choice to simply make his suicide a few sentences written on the screen after the movie is over is incomprehensible dramatically, and feels terribly cold-hearted and obtuse. 

I think a wiser choice for a film about Alan Turing would be to start the story with Turing already deep into the Enigma code breaking process, and then we see him succeed and 'win the war'. But then we transition to how his country repaid him for his genius by persecuting him for his sexuality, and then harassed and finally crucified him. Add into this mix his complex and conflicted relationship with Knightley's Clarke, and you have the recipe for a really compelling film with forceful performances from both Cumberbatch and Knightley, who are unquestionably up to task. 

Returning once again to the great Colin Firth, the film that The Imitation Game has been most compared to is the one Firth won a Best Actor Oscar for,  The King's Speech from 2010, which also won the Best Picture, Best Director and Best Screenplay Oscar . I understand the comparisons, both are set around the same time period, both are exceedingly mainstream, and both are strikingly British.  The King's Speech is a fine film, not great, but well made and I very much enjoyed it, particularly the acting. The Imitation Game is nowhere near the film The King's Speech is, and neither are the performances, of that there can be no doubt. The comparisons to The King's Speech do The Imitation Game no favors.

In conclusion, The Imitation Game is an achingly safe and straight forward Hollywood film, even though it is unquestionably British. The heroic, yet tragic story of Alan Turing is one that deserved considerably more bravery from the people making it. Solid performances aside, the film fails to live up to the life of the man it is made about, and that is a shame.

© 2015

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , WHIPLASH , BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) , FOXCATCHER , WILD , AMERICAN SNIPER , A MOST VIOLENT YEAR , NIGHTCRAWLER , STILL ALICE , INHERENT VICE , SELMA , MR. TURNER , CAKE .

Wild : A Review

****WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SOME (MINOR) SPOILERS!! YOU HAVE BEEN OFFICIALLY WARNED****

Wild, directed by Jean-Marc Vallee (Dallas Buyers Club), is a film adaptation of Cheryl Strayed's memoir of self-discovery "Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail". Nick Hornby adapted the book for the screen. In the story, Strayed is compelled to hike the very formidable Pacific Crest Trail from southern California up to Washington state in order to heal herself and purge her demons after the death of her mother, years of drug use and promiscuity, and a divorce. The story is told from Cheryl Strayed's perspective and follows her on her physical journey, including her mental and emotional fluctuations while on that journey, all the while peppered with flashbacks of her life leading up to the decision to trek. 

Reese Witherspoon stars in the film as Cheryl Strayed. This is the best performance of Reese Witherspoon's career, without question. It isn't easy for an actress of her status to dirty themselves up and expose themselves, both literally and figuratively, in a film like this. But she dives in head first and roles around in the muck and the mire, embracing the grit and grime of the character and her journey.  She should be applauded for her courage if nothing else, but the performance deserves applause for more than just it's courage. Witherspoon's usual appealing persona is not removed from her portrayal, but it is channelled and contained enough to give her character the right amount of vibrancy and charm that encourages us to follow her through the story without making her unreal, phony or too Hollywood. This is the 'most genuine' Witherspoon has ever felt on camera. She still maintains that trademark radiant energy of hers which made her a star, but it is sullied enough that she is able to create a  distinct, specific and conflicted character, one that we might actually come across while out in the world somewhere. Reese Witherspoon's performance is undeniably the driving force of the film, and I am sure she will receive, at the least, a well-deserved Oscar nomination. I genuinely hope that in the future she will take on more challenging roles in more interesting films like she has this year with Wild and Inherent Vice

Besides Witherspoon's performance, the most interesting aspect of the film to me, and what it does incredibly well, is to perfectly capture the overwhelming feeling of vulnerability a woman can experience out alone in a world filled with men. This is a thought I rarely, if ever, contemplate. It was such an interesting insight to me, to be able to not only understand that experience intellectually, but to actually feel it, which is a credit to both Vallee's direction and to Reese Witherspoon's powerful and appealing performance. Without the Witherspoon's trademark natural charm, there is a chance the Cheryl character would not be as easy to connect with, and that would undermine this forceful aspect of the film. The tangible feeling whenever Cheryl comes into contact with men while in the wild, is one of predator and prey. Men are the predators, with their different tactics and strategies, and Cheryl is the prey. Her vulnerability is palpable in these situations. Even if the men aren't always trying to prey upon her, she certainly feels as if they are, and the audience feels it right along with her. This was a really eye-opening and transformational experience for me watching the film. In real life, I'm a large mammal, and so I never really have that experience of vulnerability. That is not to say that I am never in the position of being prey, but it is to say, regardless of situation, I never feel like prey, but with Wild, and Reese Witherspoon's work in it in particular, I was able to have that experience. It is a credit to the filmmaker and the actress that they were able to expand my horizons in such a way that I will be able to be much more empathetic and understanding of people who have that very uncomfortable feeling of vulnerability on a much more regular basis.

Watching Wild, I was reminded of one of my favorite films, the 1986 Roland Joffe film, The Mission, which is set in 18th century South America, where Robert DeNiro's character must carry his 'baggage', the heavy armor and weapons he used to kill his brother in a fit of jealousy, tied to his back as he hikes and climbs the Andes under the supervision of Jesuit missionaries. The carrying of the weapons on the arduous climb is his penance for his sins and the vehicle for his spiritual transformation. Wild is not as great a film as The Mission, but it is a good film with similar lessons to teach. Strayed makes a less arduous but equally dramatic pilgrimage as DeNiro's character does in The Mission, and carries all of her literal and figurative 'luggage' with her on the way. The lesson Strayed learns on the journey is to slowly, but surely, release the emotional baggage from her past, and to free herself of the burdens her mistakes and misdeeds weigh upon her. As in The Mission, Strayed's journey in Wild is for spiritual transformation and psychological catharsis.

The power of a journey or quest, whether it be for wisdom, penance, transformation or catharsis, resonates with us all. At one time or another we have all had to make the journey, be it actual or symbolic, or more likely, both. Whether that journey be out of the womb or the slow march to the tomb, or anything in between, we evolve a little or a lot with every step we take on it. Mankind's myths speak to the universality of the power of the journey, whether it be the quest for the holy grail, Homer's odyssey, or Christ's tortuous march to Golgotha. The 'journey myth' speaks to us on levels we can both enjoy as entertainment and yet also psychologically in ways we are not able to intellectualize, verbalize or quite grasp . The 'journey myth' takes hold in, and works upon, both the collective and our personal sub-conscious. The history of film is riddled with the journey myth in the form of  the 'road picture', from Hope and Crosby to Easy Rider to Rainman to Little Miss Sunshine to name but a few. Wild is not quite to the level of those films, but it is a road picture that takes us off the road and into the wild and out of our, and Reese Witherspoon's, comfort zone. It is far from a perfect film, but it is a journey well worth your time, if for no other reason than to contemplate your own transformational journey, and to see Reese Witherspoon at her most genuine.

© 2015

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , WHIPLASH , BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) , FOXCATCHER , AMERICAN SNIPER , THE IMITATION GAME , A MOST VIOLENT YEAR , NIGHTCRAWLER , STILL ALICE , INHERENT VICE , SELMA , MR. TURNER , CAKE .

 

The Theory of Everything: A Review

****THIS REVIEW CONTAINS NO SPOILERS!! REPEAT…THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!!****

The Theory of Everything, directed by James Marsh (Man on Wire, Project Nim), is the story of famed theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, his wife Jane, his battle with motor neuron disease and her efforts to care for him. The film, written by Anthony McCarten, is based upon Jane Hawking's memoir "Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen".

The film stars Eddie Redmayne as Stephen Hawking and Felicity Jones as Jane Hawking. Redmayne's performance as Hawking is worth noting. He does an incredible job morphing himself into Hawking physically. He looks uncannily like the famed genius as he shrivels and contorts in his wheelchair at the mercy of this awful disease that ravages his body. I can't help but think though, that The Theory of Everything should have been called The Imitation Game because Redmayne's performance seems more like an imitation than acting. When I was a young man (or at least younger man) studying acting at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts in London, I had a very interesting discussion with one of the phenomenal teachers there one day about the predicament and potential difficulties of playing an actual, well-known person. This teacher said something that has stayed with me ever since, she said, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the least sincere form of acting". I mean, if imitation was acting, Frank Caliendo and Rich Little would have trophy cases filled with Oscars, but it isn't and they don't. This teacher's voice kept ringing in my ears as I watched The Theory of Everything. This is not entirely Redmayne's fault though. The script is so two-dimensional that, like a black hole, no light, or life, or genuine humanity can survive in it. So Redmayne's obvious hard work is all for nought, and his physical transformation rings hollow because there is no authentic life within in the script.

Felicity Jones does as well as she can with what she is given, and is an extremely appealing presence throughout the film, but again she is terribly short changed by an underwhelming script. She does bring an unmistakable charisma to every scene she inhabits though, and I very much look forward to seeing her work with more substantial material than this in the future.

Visually, the film uses a minimalist approach in trying to convey the big, complex thoughts on time and space that made Hawking such a world famous figure. For example, using the spinning cream in a cup of coffee as a visual cue for Hawking to think of the vastness of the universe and how it all could have started. I think this approach is a fatal error for the film. The story of Hawking would have been much better served if they had chosen to make a film in the vein of The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, which would tell Hawking's story by using the medium of film to it's fullest advantage by showing us Hawking's unique view of the world, through his eyes. It also would be a great opportunity to use film for it's greatest strength, the ability to show us something that we can only imagine, and barely at that, the big bang and the beginning and expansion of the universe. Instead we get visuals that are flat, ordinary and stale, as is the storytelling.

After the film ended my friend, the inimitable Lady Pumpernickle-Dussledorf, looked up Stephen Hawking on wikipedia and after reading commented, "Stephen Hawking's wikipedia page has more dramatic tension than that entire movie". Wise woman that Lady Pumpernickle-Dussledorf. The most frustrating thing about the film, is that there is such rich source material there, if only someone had the courage to really delve into it. Hawking is a fascinating character, and his life is beyond remarkable, so to have his story reduced into the most pedestrian and simplistic of films is irritating if not downright maddening.

As is often the case with biopics, and is most definitely the case with biopics this year, making a film about someone still alive or someone whom people have a direct interest in protecting their legacy, is a sure fire way to make an ordinary, mundane and dull film. Examples of biopics this year being artistically constricted by people with a vested interest looking over the filmmakers shoulders include but are not limited to,  Foxcatcher and American Sniper. I have written before about the difficulty of this situation for actors, directors and writers, in two previous posts, The Great Man Theory and the Dangers of Deification Part One, and The Great Man Theory and the Dangers of Deification Part Two. Sadly, I think both of those posts hold relevancy for The Theory of Everything, which is another in the long line of films to fall prey to the dangers of deification.

In conclusion, The Theory of Everything is an ordinary film about a very extraordinary man. It is nothing more than a paint by numbers, standard biopic. There is no life, no energy and most importantly no humanity in the entire film. A life like Stephen Hawking's deserves better, and so do we.

© 2015

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO WHIPLASH , BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) , FOXCATCHER , WILD , AMERICAN SNIPER , THE IMITATION GAME , A MOST VIOLENT YEAR , NIGHTCRAWLER , STILL ALICE , INHERENT VICE , SELMA , MR. TURNER , CAKE .

 

American Sniper: A Review

***** WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS!!! THIS IS YOUR ONE AND ONLY SPOILER ALERT!!****

 

American Sniper, directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Bradley Cooper, is the story of the late Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, and is loosely based on his book American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History.  The film follows Chris Kyle's exploits on the battlefield in Iraq and his struggles with his family and PTSD back on the homeland.

I admit that after seeing the trailer for American Sniper I was excited to see the film. The trailer was really well made and brought with it a palpable tension. But, as with many films, the trailer is considerably better than the actual film. The film itself, just like the trailer, starts off with Chris Kyle prone atop a building in Iraq, contemplating whether or not he should use his sniper rifle to shoot a young boy and woman who threaten US Marines with a Russian grenade off in the distance. The film then deviates from the trailer and we go into  extended flash back scenes which show Kyle's boyhood, his young adult life, his work as a cowboy, his joining the Navy, his SEAL training, his meeting his wife and then his wedding. This is all shown to us in order to give us context for who Chris is and how he got to be that way. After twenty minutes of this exposition, we come back to Kyle atop the roof with his sniper rifle and his pending decision. He shoots and kills both the boy and his mother, his first ever kills. 

Bradley Cooper stars as Chris Kyle and is as good as he's ever been. He fully inhabits the role from top to bottom. His physicality, his Texas drawl and his energy are all spot on. Cooper's performance, without question, carries the film. There are two scenes in particular, where Cooper rises above his already very good performance to be truly transcendent. The first scene is where he has another Iraqi boy in his sniper sights as the boy picks up an RPG and points it at unsuspecting US troops. Kyle talks to himself telling the kid to drop the weapon, he doesn't want to kill another child. Just as the boy is aiming the RPG and Kyle readies to squeeze the trigger, the boy drops the weapon and runs off. Cooper's use of breath once he no longer has to decide whether to shoot or not, is brilliant. He lets out a guttural grunt of relief at being spared the damage to his psyche and soul that most assuredly would have come with killing another child, justified or not. The second scene is when Chris has returned from the war for the last time but has not told his family yet. His wife calls his cell phone and Chris answers sitting by himself in a bar in the states. He is detached and shut down, but his wife Taya tells him his kids miss him and want to see him, and once again Cooper masterfully uses his breath to show the torment and grief that lives deep in Kyle's soul, as he lets out an uncontained weep and wail and tells Taya that he is coming home. These are easily the two best scenes in the film and are highlights of not only the film, but of Bradley Cooper's career. That is the good news about American Sniper. The bad news is that the rest of the film never lives up to the at-times stellar work Bradley Cooper does in it. Sadly, the film never rises above being a standard biopic and run-of-the-mill war movie. Besides Cooper's strong performance, there is nothing remarkable about the film at all. Visually the film is dull and generic. The script is tedious and unoriginal, the dialogue stilted and occasionally cringe-worthy and the supporting actors are, for the most part, considerably below par. The end result is the film looks rushed and cheap.

For any war movie, the battle scenes need to shine in order for the film to distinguish itself. With American Sniper, the battle scenes all look flat, stagnant and lack any texture at all. The battle scenes look like something you'd see any night of the week on an episodic television show. When you consider some of the great war films that have been made, whether it be Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Saving Private RyanThe Thin Red Line or Black Hawk Down, just to name a few, and how visually creative, powerful and unique those films are, American Sniper is so visually listless as to be embarrassing in comparison.

Another thing that needs to be done for a war film to be successful is that it must attach us to a group of warriors and accurately describe and detail the unique camaraderie inherent in the warrior culture. The camaraderie in American Sniper rings false and feels contrived. Eastwood attempts to create a sense of familiarity in order for us to feel we know and care about the other SEALs in Kyle's graduating class and on his team, but we never really connect because these characters are nothing more than indistinguishable blurs. We may care about them as US servicemen, but we don't care about them as individuals or in relationship to Chris Kyle. They end up being simply cannon fodder for the film.

As for the script and the story, director Eastwood chose to use standard Hollywood narrative tools to make the story more palatable for American audiences. For instance, he chose to make an enemy sniper named "Mustafa" Chris Kyle's main foil throughout the battlefield parts of the film. The Mustafa character is only mentioned in passing in one paragraph in Chris Kyle's book, so this is a distinct creative decision to make him such a prominent character in the film. Eastwood also uses a character named "The Butcher" as another foil and symbol for the evil and brutality of America's enemy in the war. In the book, the "Butcher" character doesn't exist at all. Eastwood must have felt he needed to give the enemy in Iraq a face and a name in order to make the Iraq war segments more coherent and digestible for American audiences, not unlike what the Bush administration did in selling the actual war to the American public by making it about "Saddam and Osama". It worked for Bush and company in persuading the American public, but it fails Eastwood because he isn't selling a product (war), he is trying to create a great piece of intimate art and you can't do that by rolling out tired Hollywood storytelling devices, stereotypes and cliches.

There are two other fatal errors by Eastwood in the film. They both deal with endings. The first is the final battle scene and the second is how he ends the film itself. The final battlefield scene is nothing short of an artistic debacle, and seems to be transplanted from another film, and it certainly isn't from Kyle's book. In the sequence, Kyle takes a near impossible sniper shot from over a mile away that takes out his nemesis, Mustafa. Here Eastwood, for the first time in the film, uses a visual effect, a slow motion of the bullet as it leaves the rifle, which feels like it is taken from any number of hokey action movies from the last ten years (I am thinking of Wanted et al).  All of this happens while a sand storm and jihadis close in on Kyle and his squad. In the heat of this dire battle Chris decides to use a satellite phone to call Taya and tell her he is done with war and is coming home.  This sequence is so unwieldy and preposterous as to be comical. It belongs in a Mission: Impossible sequel and not in an allegedly true to life, gritty war movie. And instead of the sandstorm being symbolic of the loss of our national bearings in Iraq, it just comes across as being optically muddled and metaphorically befuddling. There are much more visually coherent and impactful ways to make that important point, which gets lost with Eastwood's approach.

Then there is the final scene of the film, which is very manipulative and grating. In it Kyle says goodbye to his family as he heads out to help a former Marine suffering from PTSD. In reality, this former Marine would tragically shoot and kill Chris Kyle and his friend at a shooting range that day (this is not shown in the film). In the movie scene, Taya Kyle tells Chris how proud she is of him, his kids all love him and he is finally healed and whole. It is obviously a fantasy sequence where everyone gets to say what they had hoped to say and hear what they hoped to hear and Chris' journey is neatly tied up, his martyrdom awaiting him in the form of a shady looking veteran right outside the door. Taya Kyle even has a feeling, call it a sixth sense, about this nefarious fellow waiting for her husband…then we fade to black. I understand wanting to do all that for the family, but this isn't a home movie. The final scene rings so hollow, phony and forced that it could have come right out of a Lifetime movie of the week. It is all too neat and clean and perfect (and also not how events actually played out in real life), so much so that it actually diminishes the impact of Chris Kyle's tragic death. How much more gut wrenching would it be if Taya Kyle didn't get to say all those things to her husband? What if Chris wasn't healed and whole before his death? What if he wasn't finished yet? What if he didn't get to say goodbye to his kids? That would have been a way to really emphasize the shock and horror and tragedy of Chris Kyle being so unexpectedly killed in suburban Texas after having survived four combat tours in Iraq.

Those two critical scenes are not well done, but they aren't the only missteps. There is a scene, the 'garage' scene, where a former Marine approaches Kyle back in America while his car is getting fixed and thanks Kyle for saving him back in Iraq. This could have been a really great scene, and Cooper is wondrously uncomfortable in it which is really interesting to watch, but the other actor's work is so disastrously abominable and false that it is cringe-worthy, and because of that the scene loses any dramatic impact it might have had with even a mediocre actor in that role.

Which brings me to the supporting acting. The work of the supporting actors, particularly in the 'stateside' scenes, is positively dreadful. The actor (whom I will not name) playing Chris Kyle's father is absolutely appalling, and the actor (whom I will also not name) playing Kyle's brother is so unconscionably atrocious it is downright shocking. I kept wondering, why does Chris Kyle's brother not have a Texas drawl when his father and Chris do? Also, why couldn't they find the brother a dress blue uniform that actually fit instead of being three sizes too big? The child actors who play Chris and his brother when they were young, well, they are just children, so at least they have an excuse…but boy, they are not good at acting.

So the question becomes: why are all of these supporting and smaller roles so poorly done? Well, Clint Eastwood is well known for being a minimalist in regards to how many takes he will do. That is a good and bad thing. It is good because when you do fewer takes you stay on schedule, and when you stay on schedule, you stay on budget, and when you stay on budget they let you keep making movies. The bad part is, the acting suffers. So when you are giving great actors, like Sean Penn for instance in Mystic River, or Bradley Cooper in American Sniper, or Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman, Richard Harris and Eastwood himself in Unforgiven, fewer takes, they are able to adjust their approach and keep knocking it out of the park due to their talent and skill, but with lesser talents, their performances flounder and feel rushed and out of rhythm with the rest of the film. The supporting actors in American Sniper are really abysmal, and it is not all their fault. They weren't there everyday getting the feel for the pace of the work (like Cooper was), they weren't getting the rhythm down, they showed up and had to shoot and then did two takes and it was over and they go home. It is a tough gig, but man, regardless of the reason or who is to blame, the supporting cast did a very poor job and the film suffers greatly for it.

There is one exception in regards to the supporting acting, and that is Sienna Miller. Sienna Miller does her best to bring life to the terribly written character of Taya Kyle, Chris Kyle's wife. Her work is admirable, and her American accent is very well done (which is not always the case when the Brits take it on) but the part only allows her to hit two notes: sassy and weepy. It is such a hollow and empty character that Miller should be credited for giving her all to it in a Quixotic attempt to bring some semblance of life to the character, but sadly there just isn't enough there for life to exist.

One issue which may have been a major reason why the film turned out the way it did, is that Eastwood didn't set out to make a great piece of drama, he set out to canonize Chris Kyle. This canonization of St. Chris Kyle, patron saint of 'Merica, is an example of deification, which is an all too common problem when making a biopic, particularly a biopic of someone who has died and who's family is involved in the making of the film. (I have written two previous blog posts on deification which you might find of interest. The Great Man Theory and the Dangers of Deification Part Two, is more relevant to the American Sniper conversation, but feel free to read them both. Links :  The Great Man Theory and the Dangers of Deification Part Two  , The Great Man Theory and the Dangers of Deification Part One  ) I recently read where Chris Kyle's father told Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper that if they dishonored his son he would "bring hell down on them". I understand Mr. Kyle's desire to protect his son's legacy, which has been called into question for some dubious claims his son had made, not the least of which was that he claimed to have punched Jesse Ventura out for making disparaging remarks about SEALs. That tale was adjudicated in the courts and found to be untrue, but Eastwood and Cooper needed to be more loyal to artistic truth than to any man, alive or dead. A great failure of the film is that it really is nothing more than propaganda (propaganda being defined as "the spreading of ideas, information or rumors for the purpose of helping a cause or person"), not just propaganda for a distinct version of America, the war and a certain view of the world, but more specifically it is personal propaganda for Chris Kyle and his 'legacy'. That isn't a bad thing in and of itself, some people love propaganda and some propaganda can be terrifically entertaining. But you can't make great art and propaganda at the same time. So American Sniper is not great art because it is propaganda, and it isn't great propaganda because as a film it isn't even remotely well crafted, either in the directing, the writing, or besides Bradley Cooper, in the acting. 

As a result of this creative 'deification' of Chris Kyle, a lot of really compelling issues and ideas get pushed aside in order to maintain an agreed upon version of Kyle's legacy. For instance, in the film when Chris Kyle is a young boy, his father tells him that there are three types of people in the world..sheep, wolves, and sheep dogs. The sheep are too weak or stupid to protect themselves or even admit that there is evil in the world, the wolves are evil and prey upon the sheep, and the sheep dog protects the sheep from the wolves. Mr. Kyle tells Chris that he raises only sheep dogs. This story propels Chris Kyle through his life and his Navy career. An interesting topic to explore would be that it can sometimes be difficult to tell the difference between a sheepdog and a wolf. If the sheepdog goes to someone else's country and kills people, is he still a sheep dog or is he a wolf? Does Kyle's film nemesis Mustafa think of himself as a sheepdog and Kyle as the wolf? Don't all the people fighting for the enemy tell themselves the same story about sheepdogs and wolves and see themselves as sheepdogs? And don't they have a stronger case for being the sheepdogs since they are the ones being attacked and invaded? That brings up another topic which would be intriguing to explore which is that Chris Kyle never ever has any doubt, be it in his mission or the justness of his cause. His faith is entirely in his own virtue and the righteousness of his country. Something that obviously eluded him in his lifetime, is that this faith, this lack of any doubt, is something he has in common with his enemy. The jihadi, whether it be "The Butcher" or Mustafa, is blindingly positive he is righteous and sees any doubt of the righteousness of his cause, by himself or anyone else, as a crime against his faith, his mission, his God. In the film, Chris Kyle's fellow SEAL (a one-time seminarian) had creeping doubts about the mission in Iraq, and after this SEAL is killed, Chris Kyle tells his wife that the SEAL's doubt in the mission is what got him killed. This conviction and lack of doubt is most assuredly an asset in a war zone, but how well does that certitude translate to peace time and a normal, functioning family life? That would have been a fascinating issue to explore.

Someone once said, 'Without doubt, there can be no true faith'. This struggle to hold onto surety is dramatically fertile ground which I wish the film had explored more deeply. For instance, there is a scene in the film where Chris Kyle is interviewed by a psychologist about his PTSD and the doctor asks him if he has any regrets. Kyle quickly answers that he only wishes he could have saved more Marines. I found this an interesting answer, only because there isn't the slightest bit of introspection from Kyle, and he seems blind to an obvious solution to protecting Marines which Kyle has never contemplated. If he had just stopped to think about it, one good and undeniable way to save more Marines would be to not send them into Iraq in the first place. Though that thought would never have occurred to Chris Kyle because he could not allow doubt about the mission to enter his mind. For Chris Kyle, doubt is death. In this way, Chris Kyle was like the jihadis he so masterfully killed in Iraq, he was a 'true believer'. The thing about the 'true believer' is that deep down, his faith isn't so true, because he cannot grapple with doubt. Thus his faith is one of compulsion and force, not one of reason and logic. American Sniper never had the artistic courage for this, and other deeper explorations and that is a shame because it could have been so much more than it was.

Regardless of what American Sniper isn't and what topics it avoids, it still could have been a great and entertaining movie as it was, a straight up biopic and war film. Sadly, it fails at this attempt because it gets the basics wrong. The basics being the visuals which look pedestrian and cheap, the script which is clumsily written and the acting, which, with the notable exception of Bradley Cooper, is amateurish. After the heart pounding trailer, I went into American Sniper with elevated expectations which the film was unable to meet and so I left the theatre exceedingly disappointed with the film.

Once upon a time, Clint Eastwood directed one of my favorite films of all time, Unforgiven, which would have been an excellent blue print to follow in making American Sniper. The regrets and impact of a life of violence upon the human psyche and soul is a vast and rich topic on which to meditate for an artist, which Eastwood proved in Unforgiven, but with American Sniper he chooses to avoid those difficult questions and instead makes a garden variety biopic that is little more than a commercial for the family approved legacy of Chris Kyle. It certainly isn't the worst film ever made, so if you are a fan boy or a flag waver, and there is nothing wrong with being either of those things, then this film might be for you. But if you are a cinephile or thinking patriot, then your time would be better spent elsewhere.

FOR FURTHER READING ON THE TOPIC OF THE REAL-LIFE CHRIS KYLE, PLEASE CLICK ON THIS LINK TO MY BLOG POSTING Truth, Justice and the Curious Case of Chris Kyle

 

ADDENDUM: THE FILM WHISPERER SPEAKS...

After reviewing a film, I am often asked…"okay smart guy, if you are such a god damn genius, then how would you make the film?" So… here is the answer to that question...how could they have made American Sniper (as a straight forward biopic war movie) a better film? Here is my prescription: you start the film with Chris and Taya Kyle's wedding. You have about five to seven minutes of wedding stuff (The Godfather starts with a wedding…remember!?!?). You meet his family and in the form of toasts at the wedding they tell stories of Chris' childhood. You have his SEAL classmates give toasts telling of Kyle's SEAL training and friendships with team members. You have an intimate scene of Chris and Taya having a quiet and profound moment together. Then after establishing the people in Chris's life, and his relationship to them, you put him on the roof in Iraq behind his sniper rifle aiming at the woman and her son. Then you spend the next hour of the film showing every single confirmed kill, all 160 of them, that Chris Kyle ever made. These are not elaborate set-ups and wouldn't bust the budget. Quite the opposite. You just have a shot of Kyle in various locales and then have a shot through his scope at what he sees and you see each person he shoots drop and Kyle's reaction to it. You do this over and over and over, with some interactions with Marines and soldiers he is protecting thrown in, and his 'door to door' work as well, until his first tour is over. Then you show him back home with Taya as she is pregnant and then with the newborn. Chris never speaks in these 'at home' segments, he is detached and preoccupied. The Iraq segments of the film should be especially vibrant, both visually and with sound, in direct contrast to the 'at home' sections, which are washed out and nearly silent. Then back to Iraq for tour two and more sniper kills from Kyle, interspersed with his lively interactions with fellow SEALs and Marines. Then back home for more detached domesticity…and so on and so forth until his final kill at the end of tour four and his return home for good. 

This approach would show how grinding and relentless the work of war is for the men who wage it, and the true impact of that assault on Chris Kyle's psyche, senses and soul. The audience would be rubbed raw from watching an hour of non-stop, methodical killing of 160 men, women and children. Then we transition to back home permanence and the struggle to get back to normal. It would seem as foreign to the viewer as it must have been for Chris Kyle. We then spend the next twenty minutes having very tight and intense scenes between Chris and Taya as they do the hard work of recovering their marriage, family and a sense of normalcy. These would be great scenes for Cooper and Miller to really dig in and have some fantastic acting moments as they fight for their relationship and family. This conflict is resolved when Kyle relents and goes to a psychiatrist who diagnoses him with PTSD and then tells him how he can help other servicemen suffering from the same ailment. Now we get into the final forty minutes or so of the film, which should be spent showing Kyle having very deep and meaningful conversations and interactions with PTSD sufferers. You have one or two guys in particular who we get to know and we see how Kyle's work impacts them and transforms them. So we see the tangible good Kyle did for others and how he helped himself by helping them. This gives us a true picture of Chris Kyle being healed and whole. Then you have Kyle and his close friend leave an empty house, Taya and the kids are out and Kyle has to leave the house without saying goodbye, and they go and meet a another young man with PTSD and they have a long drive to a shooting range and we see Kyle helping this guy as he has helped the other men we've met. At the end of this long drive and a profound conversation, Chris, his friend and the young man get out of the truck at a shooting range and you see from a long distance the young man pull a gun and kill both Kyle and his friend. Then, in the final scene, we see Taya with the kids, out at the mall or something, and her cell phone rings, we see her answer but don't hear anything. We see her crumble in horror and grief as she obviously gets the news of her husband's murder. Fade to black, scroll the news footage of Chris Kyle's funeral procession and memorial at Texas stadium.

Doing the film this way maintains Kyle's 'legacy' much more than the Eastwood film does. It doesn't make him another action hero, it makes him an actual human being, who excelled at war, struggled to recover his balance once returning from war, and then found himself once again being of service to others. That is how you make a financially and artistically successful Chris Kyle biopic. Back up the Brinks truck and prepare your Oscar speech Mr. Cooper and Mr. Eastwood and maybe even Ms. Miller. Sadly, this isn't what happened. Oh…and Hollywood studios, please wise up and contact me, The Film WhispererBEFORE you shoot these films,  and you will save yourself a lot of trouble, and make yourself a lot of money and win yourself a lot of Oscars. I am currently available and my rates are reasonable…for now.

© 2014

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , WHIPLASH , BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) , FOXCATCHER , WILD , THE IMITATION GAME , A MOST VIOLENT YEAR , NIGHTCRAWLER , STILL ALICE , INHERENT VICE , SELMA , MR. TURNER , CAKE .

 

Whiplash : A Review

**WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS!! THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL AND FINAL SPOILER ALERT!!**

Whiplash, written and directed by newcomer Damien Chazelle, and starring Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons, is one of the best, if not the best film of the year. The film tells the story of 19 year old Andrew Neiman (Teller), an aspiring and ambitious jazz drummer in his first year at the acclaimed Shaffer Conservatory, and his relationship with the school's infamously demanding conductor, Terence Fletcher (Simmons). 

The film is nearly impeccable in all areas. First time director, Chazelle, masterfully creates and maintains a palpable tension throughout the entirety of the story. The storytelling is so streamlined and efficient that there is not one wasted scene or even a wasted moment. Every single moment is built upon the previous and builds toward the next. 

The performances by Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons are unquestionably brilliant. Both actors deserve, at a minimum, Oscar nominations, as does Chazelle for the script and his direction. Watching this film and their performances in it, reminds me why I love cinema and acting as much as I do. This is one of those films which gives me hope that exquisitely sublime acting can still matter, and that artistic films of tremendous quality can overcome a business model and public that more often than not discounts them in favor of mindless big-budget retreads and sequels.

Miles Teller as Andrew, plays the awkward teenager, struggling to fit in and make his way in the world, so perfectly that it is, at times, uncomfortable to watch. There are no seams to Teller's performance at all, he simply inhabits Andrew in all his discomfort, desperation, need, ambition, sweetness and ugliness. Teller never makes a false step by veering into sentimentality or manipulation. He so thoroughly brings Andrew to life in such a genuine and organic way that Andrew feels familiar to us and so we recognize him from our own lives, as maybe our son, a brother, a desperate friend or God forbid…ourselves. The skill and power of Teller's performance binds us to Andrew so that we cringe with him, celebrate with him and deflate with him through all of his ups and downs. 

J.K. Simmons as Terence Fletcher has an energy that is so concentrated and direct that it is palpable. He pulsates with a focused ferocity and cutting brutality that is as magnetic as it is repulsive. His performance is, like Miles Teller's, the work of a master craftsman. It is specific, precise and distinct yet irresistibly dynamic. When Simmon's Fletcher unleashes his wrath, those around him only pray that he doesn't direct that energy at them, and when he directs it at someone else they put their head down, keep their mouth shut and thank the good Lord that it's the other guy getting it and not them. Fletcher is a cruel bully who emotionally, physically and mentally abuses all around him, but by the end of the film he is proven to be not only vindictive and vicious…but effective. Simmons makes this ferocious and callous man Fletcher a real person, so that even in his remorseless brutality to those around him, we never feel he lacks passion or doesn't care…it is just what he cares about and if it's too much, that is in question. Fletcher is interested in transcendent greatness, and will do most anything to see it form before him, including destroying those who lack the skill, and more importantly, the will, to be great.

The Fletcher character reminds me of the quote from the Bhagavad Gita, "Now I become death, the destroyer of worlds." Fletcher is death, the destroyer of Andrew's world and the world of all artists who aspire to exalted greatness. Fletcher is destroyer to Andrew's ego, his self-image, his worldview, his hopes and his dreams. All those things must be destroyed in order for Andrew, and all artists, to complete the hero's journey and become, not just a man, but a god who walks upon the earth. Andrew must leave his father, and his father's approach to the world (settling for 'good enough') and embrace Fletcher's (the unrelenting search for greatness), even if it is through spite and vengeance toward Fletcher, in order to complete his hero's journey. Andrew must be emptied in order to find the greatness that lives deep with him. Fletcher is the one who destroys Andrew's self and leaves him bloodied and broken in front of the world, and in that naked humiliation, at his lowest point, devoid of everything, Andrew is able to discover the greatness that was hidden within him all along. It is his anger and hatred at Fletcher that at first brings the needed vitality to birth this newfound greatness, but once it breathes the air of life and becomes manifest in the world, Andrew's anger and rage towards Fletcher fades and he is left in a state of near religious ecstasy as he becomes one with his drums in musical precision, passion and perfection. 

Whiplash works not only as a straight forward story of a young man coming of age as an artist and overcoming obstacles to do so, but it is also a great mythical tale of the hero's journey into the sacred ground of the gods and the gatekeeper who protects that sacred ground. Andrew is, of course, the hero on the journey, and Fletcher is the gatekeeper, be it the dragon, or Cerberus or the Sphinx, who puts all initiates to the test, and only those who pass his grueling gauntlet will be allowed into the inner sanctum of the gods where the treasure of golden music resides. Andrew must answer all questions posed to him, and survive all tests Fletcher-dragon puts to him, in order to even be considered for entry into the revered ground. And even after passing the tests, it isn't until Andrew releases his old self, symbolized as his being son to his father, and he walks away from his father and takes the offensive against the tyrannical Fletcher-dragon, is he able to prove his courage and worth and gain entry into the sacred land of the gods, where Apollo, Greek god of music, or Saraswati, Hindu Goddess of music, or Dionyssus, god of religious ecstasy and ritual madness, is conjured and made manifest in Andrew's playing. He then stops playing the drums, and the drums start playing him, the music and Andrew, are in the hands of the gods now, and the music that is a result of this mystical and supernatural intercourse is gloriously divine.

The hero's journey that Andrew embarks on is the same journey that all artists, be they musicians, actors or writers must go through. In my experience as an acting coach and teacher, the struggle I most often see is that of aspiring actors being unable to truly empty themselves and lose their old self in order to embrace the new self that is waiting for them if they only would have the courage to make the leap towards it. In working with actors, I am often reminded of the 'oedipal' section of The Doors song "The End" in which Jim Morrison sings of killing his father and fucking his mother. So many actresses I have seen need to kill their father, symbolically of course, to free themselves from the fear of his judgement, in order to become great. Actors need to kill their mothers (and fathers) in order to stop being sons, in other words children, and start being men.  Like Andrew, sons are always on the defensive, but when they 'kill their fathers', like Andrew did in walking away from his father, they are then free to go on the offensive, which is where freedom lies.  It has been my experience that the overwhelming majority of both actors and actresses lack the courage and the will to symbolically kill their parents, and their work suffers as a result of it. Parental judgment, whether real or imagined, can, and almost always does, destroy the freedom needed for artistic greatness to flourish, and leaves in it's wake the lesser choices of entertaining and performing. Thus all artists who strive for greatness must at some point kill their parents, again symbolically, in order to be free and empty enough to enter the hallowed ground of the gods where true greatness lies. Only once an artist kills their parents will they be able to complete their hero's journey by slaying their own personal Fletcher-dragon. This is the story of Whiplash, and it is the story for all of us who answer that most divine of calls, the sacred call to be an artist.

© 2014

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) , FOXCATCHER , WILD , AMERICAN SNIPER , THE IMITATION GAME , A MOST VIOLENT YEAR , NIGHTCRAWLER , STILL ALICE , INHERENT VICE , SELMA , MR. TURNER , CAKE .

BIRDMAN or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance): A Review

"The two hardest things in life to deal with are failure and success" - author unknown

WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS!! CONSIDER THIS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER ALERT!!

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) is the story of Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton), a former star of the fictitious superhero "Birdman" franchise films, who is on the downside of his career and tries to reignite it by adapting, directing and starring in a stage version of Raymond Carver's What We Talk About When We Talk About Love. The film follows the trials and tribulations of the staging of the play, of Riggan's life and his descent (or further descent) into madness.

Besides Michael Keaton in the lead, the film boasts a stellar cast of supporting actors including Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, Emma Stone, Amy Ryan and Zach Galifianakis. All of them turn in solid and sometimes spectacular performances. Norton in particular is really great as Mike Shiner, a stage actor intensely committed to his craft and work. 

Keaton is the best he has ever been in the lead role of Riggan Thomson. He effortlessly captures Riggan's desperation, emptiness and regrets, both professional and personal. Keaton emanates Riggan's frantic need to be famous, important, respected and loved (both by others and himself), and that reeking stink of desperation seeps through his every pour and envelops and follows him wherever he goes.  Keaton as Riggan is both charismatic and repulsive at the same time, no easy feat, and he carries the film with the power of his performance as a man running out of performance power.

"Popularity is the slutty little cousin of prestige" - Mike Shiner

The symbolism of having Keaton play the lead is undeniable. Keaton has been identified for decades by his portrayal of Batman in the first few Tim Burton Batman movies of the 80's. In many ways, Keaton's once promising career never fully recovered from being Batman. His wallet certainly never suffered from playing the Caped Crusader, but his artistic soul, instincts, reputation and career most assuredly did. Keaton, just like Riggan Thomson, had not only lost his artistic soul, but he had also lost the thing most precious in the entertainment industry…cultural relevance. Riggan's staging of a 'comeback' play is on one level, an attempt to save his artistic soul by returning to the birthplace of acting…the theatre, and doing a work by Carver, a writer who once encouraged a young Riggan to really pursue being an actor. But as the ice cold theatre critic Tabitha Dickinson (brilliantly played by Lindsay Duncan) tells Riggan, "You aren't a real actor, you're a celebrity". Ouch…the truth hurts, as they say, because on another level Riggan proves Tabitha right, by using his return to the theatre as just a way for him to get some temporary artistic credibility (Mike Shiner's aforementioned 'prestige') in order to return to cultural relevance, and thus fame ('popularity'). Of course, the same could be said of Keaton, who in returning to a smaller, independent, art-house type film, is trying to re-ignite not only his long lost acting credibility (prestige), but also his fame and cultural relevance (popularity). Keaton has gotten nominated for a Golden Globe and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he gets an Oscar nomination, which brings with it prestige. So this film may work for him on both the prestige and popularity counts. Time will only tell how things play out, I certainly hope he doesn't fling himself out of a high-rise window.

 

What is fascinating about Birdman is that it plays with the multiple ways in which reality is perceived from an artists (or at least an actor's) point of view, and lets all of those various realities mix together to help the viewer try and understand why Riggan is so out of and off balance. His world and his perception of the world never settles down enough for him to stand firmly upon it and claim one reality as his own, so he stumbles from one perception of reality to the next, never fully understanding any one that he inhabits.

 

Riggan has a sign up on his dressing room mirror which reads, "A thing is a thing, not what is said of that thing". This is a bit of wisdom that Riggan is never fully able to integrate into his psyche. Riggan, like most famous people, or formerly famous people, is stuck between being an actual human being and being a human creation. Is he defined by what people are saying about him on Facebook, or how many twitter followers he has? Is he defined by what the critics say of him? Or of what studio heads think of him? Or of what films roles he is offered, or how many awards he has won, or how much money he makes? Or is he defined by his past success as Birdman, or has his past success as Birdman actually become a failure and does that define him? All confusing stuff but it can be boiled down to this…there are two questions that famous people, whether they be actors, reality stars, cable news talking heads, politicians or general wannabes wrestle with on an everyday basis…1. what do people think of me? and 2. what do the really important people think of me?….and not always in that exact order.

The artist is not spared in the distorted perception of reality discussion either. Edward Norton's Mike Shiner is a successful broadway actor, the quintessential stage actor. He is so lost in his art that he is unable to actually be a real, live person anywhere except on stage in front of an audience. He is so committed to his art in fact, that the only time he has been able to get an erection in the last six months is on stage in front of a live audience during a performance of Riggan's 'comeback play'. He is self aware enough to know that he is a disaster area of a human being, but is so cocksure as an actor that he is willing to overlook the 95% of his life off-stage in order to 'shine' for that 5% of the time he is on stage. The artist, along with the fame hungry star, can lose their balance in the search for their validation of choice. As Mike Shiner puts it, "popularity is the slutty little cousin of prestige". Shiner is the artistic shadow of Riggan, and in turn, Riggan is the shadow of Shiner, both distorted by their quest, one for popularity, one for prestige. Flip sides of the same coin.

"I do not like the man who squanders life for fame; give me the man who living makes a name" - Emily Dickinson

The lesson to take from Birdman, (and a life in the acting business) is that fame is a disease. The pursuit of it is an act of the insane. With fame comes a deep moral and ethical decay and rot. The world of the famous is filled with corruption, depravity, self-loathing and paranoia. When a person attains fame, they cease to be a human being, and morph into a soul-less product. Just like any large corporation, be it Exxon, Time-Warner or Goldman Sachs, the famous may have legal 'personhood' but they are not actual human beings.  This is the sickness of fame. It strips those who have it of their human being-ness, and that is why it strips those of us looking upon them of our humaneness. We project all of our hopes and fears upon them, often all at the same time. When a person is so inundated with all of these projections, they can't help but be overwhelmed by them as if by being struck by a tsunami. Their true selves get obliterated, and the person they were, for good or for ill, vanishes, and is replaced with a new self, that is false and manufactured. The only antidote to the disease and addiction of fame is to actively work against it and to cultivate a grounded life and a sense of true self. Fame as an off-shoot of being genuinely talented, is difficult enough, even when it is vigorously shunned, but fame that is a result of  sheer ambition and force of will that is pursued to fill a desperate psychological need or satiate a malignant narcissism, is an act of madness that will most assuredly result in self immolation. Birdman lays that hard truth bare for all to see, and it is a lesson that America would be wise to learn in this age of the reality television star and the celebration of the minimally talented.

"Whatever begins, also ends" - Seneca

As much as I enjoyed Birdman, and I genuinely did, there is one major flaw, and in some ways it undermines the entirety of the film. The ending is terribly bungled, so much so that it leaves me scratching my head because they actually had the chance to end it perfectly twice and let those endings pass and instead settled for a muddled and bewildering ending that scuttles the interest and brilliance that leads up to it. The film ends with Riggan jumping out a hospital window, and his daughter Sam (Emma Stone) entering the empty hospital room and not finding her father and seeing the window open she goes to it and looks out. First she looks down, as if to find his body splattered on the sidewalk, when she doesn't, she then looks up…and sees something and smiles. We don't see what she sees, but I would assume that Riggan has become The Birdman, or a legend and now resides among the stars or something along those lines. He has become immortal at last. That ending is fine in and of itself, but it doesn't work because in the context of the film, there were not one but two different endings leading up to it, thus altering and undermining the final beat of the movie. The first aborted ending is when Riggan is on stage with a real gun and not the prop gun of the play, and holds it to his head and pulls the trigger in front of a packed house on stage. The screen goes black. The film could have ended there and people would have left talking about it. How people will literally (and figuratively) kill themselves for fame and stardom. This is a major theme running through the American psyche at the moment and numerous films are exploring the subject, from Whiplash to Foxcatcher to Birdman. The 'shooting yourself on stage' ending leaves us talking about those type of issues and our celebrity and fame infected and obsessed culture as we leave the movie theatre and for days and weeks after. 

The second ending comes right after the first, we come back from a black screen following the shooting to find Riggan in the hospital, he survived, but he shot his nose off. He has literally (and figuratively) cut, or in this case shot, his nose off to spite his face. On the other hand, he is on the cover of all the newspapers and the hot topic on television, everyone is talking about him, and even giving him great reviews. He is back to relevance, both artistic and fame-wise, prestige and popularity. He sits in bed thinking about it all, the madness of it, the hell that was fame when he once knew it, the road that lies ahead of being back in-the-mix of the decadent, vicious, vapid and vacant world of hollywood and pop culture. Keaton is brilliant in this scene, he captures Riggan's conflicted feelings and fear perfectly. It would have been an absolutely fantastic way to end the film, with just a close up of Keaton as he hears that he IS BACK ON TOP, and seeing what that really means to someone who has lived through it before and knows he won't live through it again this time, and how empty and toxic the prize he has just won really is. Cut to black…prepare Oscar speech. But again, they didn't do that, they instead have a few more minutes of the film which just aren't necessary and which undercut the brilliance that preceded it and disrupt and alter the rhythm of the film. I have been trying to figure out why the decision to end the film where they did was made, it is baffling. It isn't a more 'hollywood' ending, in fact it is still an 'art house' ending, just a more muddled and less coherent one. And of the three artistic endings it could have used, it is without question the weakest. 

As a result of the unskillful ending of the film, I had the experience of finding the film to be…well...forgettable. That is not to say that I didn't enjoy the experience of watching it in the theatre, and it is also not to say that it isn't a good film, it is to say that by faltering at the end the film does not end up staying with you for very long. You don't walk out of the theatre and talk about it for hours. You don't think about it and mull it over for the following days and weeks. The film had the chance to be a sumptuous feast if it had gotten its ending right, but instead it lurches from one false ending to the next, which ultimately, like chinese food, leaves you hungry twenty minutes later.

In conclusion, Birdman is a very good film that I really enjoyed watching, with solid and sometimes spectacular performances by the entire cast, but it misses out on being a great film by not getting the oh-so-critical ending right, and that is a terrible shame. As I said, I did enjoy the film, but I do wonder if 'normal' people, in other words, 'non-actors' or 'non-entertainment industry' people will enjoy it quite as much as I did. But with all that said I recommend you go see it, if for no other reason than to get a glimpse into the madness of the life of being an actor, or even worse...a successful actor.

© 2014

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , WHIPLASH , FOXCATCHER , WILD , AMERICAN SNIPER , THE IMITATION GAME , A MOST VIOLENT YEAR , NIGHTCRAWLER , STILL ALICE , INHERENT VICE , SELMA , MR. TURNER , CAKE .

FOXCATCHER and the Problem of Perspective

WARNING: SPOILER ALERTS AHEAD!!! CONSIDER THIS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER ALERT!!! READ NO FURTHER IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN A FOXCATCHER VIRGIN!!

In January of 1996, John du Pont, heir to the massive du Pont family fortune, shot and killed Olympic gold medal winning wrestler Dave Schultz in front of the house Schultz lived in with his wife and two children on the sprawling du Pont family compound. I remember when this incident occurred and watching the national news stories about it, which were heightened because of du Pont's famous family name and tremendous wealth and Dave Schultz's standing as an American Olympic hero. After committing the murder John du Pont locked himself in his home and refused to come out. It all had the shades of a sort of O.J. Simpson type of situation. The stand off with police lasted two days before John du Pont was apprehended. It was a riveting, fascinating and incredible story. The one thing I remember most from watching the story unfold in real time was asking myself the question, why would a guy with so much money and power, the things we are taught to value the most here in America, throw it all away by killing an olympic hero? What was the real story? It was a compelling mystery and I always thought that answering that question would make a great movie. Which is why I was so excited to see the story made into the film Foxcatcher, directed by Bennett Miller and starring Steve Carrell, Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo.

In the film, Channing Tatum plays Mark Schultz, an olympic wrestler and Dave Schultz's younger brother, Mark Ruffalo plays Dave Schultz and Steve Carrell plays the eccentric John du Pont. The main focus of the film is the odd relationship between Mark Schultz and John du Pont who is one very strange wrestling enthusiast and philanthropist.

Since nearly twenty years had passed since the murder, I had forgotten the majority of the details of the crime, and only vaguely remembered the basics of the story, and upon seeing the film I realized I had mis-remembered a lot of the actual story, so consequently I was surprised by how the story played out. Usually being surprised by a film is a really good thing, but in the case of Foxcatcher, the reason I was surprised was also the reason the film fails, and that is because the film has a gigantic problem with the basics of storytelling perspective. To illustrate my point I have to give away the end of the film, so even though I've already given a SPOILER ALERT at the top, here is your final SPOILER ALERT. 

The biggest issue with the film is that it never comes to terms with it's perspective problem. The film is shown from Mark Schultz's perspective. We see everything play out from his point of view. Miller uses the camera to show us what Mark sees through his eyes, and we hear what Mark hears, we experience the world as Mark experiences it. This technique creates a connection between the viewer and Mark. We empathize with him, we root for him, we project ourselves onto him. The choice to do this is a really critical error in telling this story. The filmmaker had basically four perspectives to choose from in telling the story. There was Dave Schultz's perspective, John du Pont's perspective, Mark Schultz's perspective and there is the 'God' perspective, where the audience sees everything and knows everything. Miller chose Mark's perspective, which to me is the weakest perspective to choose of the four because in reality, Mark is a secondary character in the story, but in the film they make him the main character. The main characters in the real-life drama are Dave Schultz and John du Pont. They are also the more interesting characters. That is not to say that Mark isn't interesting, it is just to say that he isn't AS interesting as Dave Schultz and John du Pont.

An example of how Miller establishes that this is Mark's story, and why he shouldn't have, is one sequence where Mark, who at this point in the story has turned against his one time benefactor du Pont, must work out extra hard prior to a weigh-in in order to lose the twelve pounds he gained in a self-loathing binge the night before, in order to be allowed to wrestle. In the sequence Mark rides a stationary bike in the bowels of an arena trying to sweat out the weight while brother Dave encourages him. Then we see du Pont enter the hallway in front of them and Mark is obviously unhappy to see him, so Dave intercepts du Pont before he can get into ear shot of Mark and he has a conversation with him. Just like Mark, we don't get to hear that conversation, we only get to see it occur through Mark's eyes and through the glass of the door. That would have been a great scene to watch and listen to. The older brother protecting his little brother from the strange du Pont, but also keeping du Pont happy because du Pont was Dave's benefactor at this point too, and Dave has a wife and young kids to feed. We don't get to see that scene up close or hear it at all, that is the choice director Bennett Miller made. That is okay, and could have worked in the film if the actual, real-life story turned out another way, with du Pont shooting Mark instead of Dave (which is what I thought would happen since I mis-remebered the true story and since the film was showing us everything through Mark's perspective), or with Mark at least being present for the shooting. But it didn't. In the end, when du Pont shoots and kills Dave, Mark is all the way across the country when it happens, and entirely off-screen.  In the climax, we see everything that Mark couldn't see after spending two hours seeing only what he could see, and on top of that, we are never even allowed to see Mark's reaction to the news of the murder. We never get any closure with the story because we have been forced, through the choice of the director, to project ourselves onto Mark for the first two hours of the film, now in the final act of the film, we are abruptly and jarringly pulled from that perspective and thrown into the "God" perspective of seeing all. The film ends with Mark in an arena about to go into an octagon and compete in an MMA fight, but as the scene begins he sits backstage waiting to go on. I kept thinking someone would come up and say "Mark, phone call" and he'd go to a pay phone and get the news that the creepy du Pont had killed his brother, but we never got that.  That scene never happens and it is such a massive mistake on such a basic storytelling level that is is absolutely shocking. The ending of the film undermines the entire choice to use Mark's perspective to tell the story. It makes absolutely no storytelling or filmmaking sense. Never getting to see the impact of Dave's death on Mark is not only a truly baffling filmmaking decision, but an unforgivably wasted opportunity.

Part of why that is a wasted opportunity is because it would have been a great scene to see Channing Tatum sink his teeth into. I must admit, I have never really understood the Channing Tatum phenomenon. I know women go crazy for him, but I just don't get it (not surprisingly), and I have never seen him be anything other than passable in terms of acting on film. I don't think he's terrible, I just don't think he's ever been very good, or much of anything for that matter. But to his great credit, he does a really good job as Mark Schultz, and I would've appreciated seeing him tackle the scene where he learns of his brother's murder. What I did really admire about his performance was that he fully committed to the part physically. He had a very distinct gait and carriage and even transformed how he held his jaw and forehead. When you are Channing Tatum, you don't have to do stuff like that. He could have just gotten all ripped physically and been a piece of eye candy, but instead he decided to actually become another person and inhabit a character. I commend him for the hard work and putting thought and time into it. It is a sad thing to say, but an actor actually committing to their work and doing their job is worthy of praise in the Hollywood of today.

Mark Ruffalo is fantastic as the older, and more successful, brother, Dave Schultz. His complicated relationship with his younger and more emotionally fragile brother Mark is a really rich and layered piece of work. We don't get to see too much of his relationship with du Pont, which is a shame because it really would have been fascinating to see him handle the eccentricities as deftly as possible while trying to keep the money train flowing in order to provide for his family. Again, another wasted opportunity that is all the more glaring since the majority of the film is undermined by the final fifteen minutes. I think using Dave's perspective to tell the story would have been a much wiser storytelling choice and also would have let us see much more of the subtle and intricate performance that Ruffalo delivers.

Steve Carrell's work as John du Pont is good but I have to say, through no fault of his own, it feels incomplete. Carrell embraces the oddities and eccentricities of du Pont, and there are lots of them, and he believably transforms himself into the character, but once again, the choice of using Mark's perspective to tell the story robs us of the chance to really get to know du Pont, to get into his head and to understand him on anything other than a surface level. I would have loved to see just a single scene of John du Pont by himself in a room, for instance. Carrell is much more than just a comedic actor, and I would have really loved to see him get the opportunity to do more with such a fantastic part, but sadly the script does't permit it and the film suffers for it. A really fascinating film would have been one told from John du Pont's perspective because he is the real mystery in all of this. The film never really even approaches the topic of why, exactly, John du Pont killed Dave Schultz. I have done a bunch of reading on the murder since seeing the film, and the more I read about it, the more obvious it is that the story of John du Pont, and the twisted and dark world residing in his head, is the real treasure that the filmmakers should have gone after.  But I guess they didn't have the courage to reach for that brass ring. Their film is so much the lesser for it.

Foxcatcher is one of those films that really could have been great. It is a fascinating story with really unique characters and is populated by a cast of very talented and interesting actors. It has all sorts of intriguing issues boiling just underneath it's surface…America's corruption, moral decay, and hypocrisy, class warfare, the degradation people will sink to in order to get money, fame or success.  But sadly, the film, not unlike John du Pont the man, is a failure, and not unlike the murder of the great Dave Schultz, I think it is a senseless and tragic waste.

© 2014

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , WHIPLASH , BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) , WILD , AMERICAN SNIPER , THE IMITATION GAME , A MOST VIOLENT YEAR , NIGHTCRAWLER , STILL ALICE , INHERENT VICE , SELMA , MR. TURNER , CAKE .

Gone Girl: A Review

This first review contains ZERO spoilers!!

Gone Girl reminds me of Spinal Tap's eleventh studio album, "Shark Sandwich".

Simply stated, Gone Girl should stay gone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING REVIEW CONTAINS MULTIPLE SPOILERS!!! THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL SPOILER ALERT!!!

I am Jack's Wasted Life

Immediately as the credits rolled, after sitting silently for the full two and a half hours of Gone Girl (directed by David Fincher, written by Gillian Flynn), a middle aged woman sitting in the row behind me proclaimed, very loudly, her opinion of the film to her female companion, "That was the most morally reprehensible film I have ever seen!" she bellowed. I was able to decipher from the rest of the diatribe that followed, that she was deeply offended by what she perceived to be the film's misogyny. I understood her argument but I didn't think the film raised, or lowered as the case may be, itself to the standard of "most morally reprehensible film I have ever seen". Most artistically reprehensible film? Now that's a different story.

To be clear, I have not read the book Gone Girl. (As my friend Chaz J. Chazzington says, "Reading? What are you a nerd?" ) Nor have I read or heard any reviews or opinions of the film. I was a 'tabula rasa', as they say, in regards to Gone Girl when I went to see it.  After watching it, I wish I could go back to that more pleasant time in my life when I had no knowledge of Gone Girl at all. That time, so peaceful and pleasant, seems very far away now, and the real tragedy is…I know I will never be able to return to it.

I am not sure where to begin in my critique of Gone Girl. The film fails in so many ways and on so many levels, that I'll be damned if I can just pick the one most glaring reason why it is no good. I guess I will do what the filmmakers did and just throw shit against a wall and let you, the reader, pick things out and try to make some semblance of order out of it.

I am Jack's Inflamed Sense of Rejection

First off, the film has no purpose. None. It might be trying to say something about modern tabloid culture, or suburban middle America, or marriage, or relationships, or exploitation, or appearances…maybe. But there is nothing, not a single thing, that is original, unique or interesting in the entire film. It says nothing, it does nothing, it means nothing. It just is. It doesn't even look great, which for a David Fincher film, is quite shocking. Some people might say, "well…it's a movie, it is just meant to entertain!" Ok, I can get on board with that..except…Gone Girl isn't even mildly entertaining. It is not something you are entertained by, it is something you endure. It is a muddling, befuddling, bewildering exercise in mindlessness. It exists only to support it's own existence.

I am Jack's Raging Bile Duct

Speaking of no purpose…who cast this film? This film boasts, in pivotal roles, not only Doogie Howser (Neil Patrick Harris) as an obsessive boyfriend who gets his throat cut, but also Medea (Tyler Perry) as a cut-throat New York city defense attorney. How is that a good idea? You couldn't find two better actors, actors with more heft, skill and edge to them than Doogie Howser and Medea? If this was an episode of Law and Order or CSI, then I'd say, good job, but this is a major studio motion picture with a budget north of $60 million dollars. You couldn't find ANYONE better than Doogie and Medea to fill those roles?  If you don't take your own film seriously, why should I?

Ben Affleck plays the lead, Nick Dunne, and he is…fine. I like Ben Affleck, I don't think he is a particularly good actor, but I think he is a good director and frankly I root for him to do well for no other reason than he seems like a nice enough guy. (For instance it was nice to see Ben, an 'empty-headed actor' passionately stand up to Bill Maher and Sam Harris and all of their intellectual midgetry on Real Time with Bill Maher last week.) What Ben Affleck brings to a movie is minimal, and that is okay. Sometimes you don't need a leading man to bring much to a film (see early Tom Cruise as an example), you just need him to not take things away from a film (see more recent Tom Cruise as an example). Ben succeeds in 'not taking things away' from Gone Girl. That is not to say he is good…that is to say that he "is", and that is all he needs to be. He certainly lacks the range and expressiveness to convey the many twists and turns in the film, and a you could have cast someone better, but you also could have cast someone worse (again, see Tom Cruise as an example).

I am Jack's Broken Heart

The only true bright spots in terms of the acting are Carrie Coon as Margo Dunn, Nick's sister, and Kim Dickens as Detective Rhonda Boney. Both Coon and Dickens are really great actresses and it is frustrating that the film doesn't live up to the work they do in it. Coon is so good I kept wishing they had cast her in the lead role of Amy Dunne instead of Rosamund Pike. Pike may be a good actress, I don't know, I've not seen her work before, but she makes a classic error in her portrayal of the psychopath Amy. She gives away the game almost from the get-go. Amy is a psychopath and psychopaths are really great actors (don't ask me how I know that!!). You can't see the seams with a psychopath. If I were working with an actress cast in the part of Amy, I would tell her to play it straight, be genuine, don't play genuine. The script does all the work for you, it gives you obviously insane actions and makes you go to great lengths to maintain your control over the situation, so you do not need to play that she is a wild-eyed psychopath, we will see it in her actions, and when you are playing her as a genuine person, it makes her actions all the more creepy, and her all the more believable as the manipulative and vengeful woman she is. This is why I was hoping that Carrie Coon was playing Amy. She is pretty, yet approachable in that girl-next-door, not super model, not Rosamund Pike way. She seems like a real person, and that is what the role needs. I also saw that Reese Witherspoon was a producer on the film. I don't know if she had bought an option on the book or what, but I think she would have been fantastic as Amy, and the fact that she would have been playing with and against her good girl image would have made her performance all the more impactful.

I am Jack's Complete Lack of Surprise

Structurally, the film is really three films jammed together. The first film is, as Ben Affleck's Nick Dunne astutely observes while being interrogated, an episode of Law and Order. It is a good-enough episode, and a fairly captivating mystery. Then the film transitions to the Amy Dunne perspective in the second act. This is a much weaker portion. Once the shock of the reveal of Amy being alive wears off, you are asked to believe more and more preposterous things as a viewer while Nick and Amy play a cat and mouse game that has appeared out of nowhere. Act three begins when Amy Dunne publicly reappears covered in blood at the Dunne home in front of the media. This is the Evel Knievel of shark jumps. The last third of the film is nothing more than a farce. One absurdity and illogical choice after another. The choices that people have to make in order for the story to keep going forward, are so illogical and asinine that they make it seem like it is all happening in another universe where the laws of human behavior are so opposite our own as to be incomprehensible.

I am Jack's Medulla Oblongata

Here are just a few things that stand out in the Gone Girl universe that make me think that the laws of human behavior, not to mention the laws of physics and biology, do not apply...

1. When we learn that Amy is alive and is on the run and hiding out, she decides to befriend someone. Well, you may think that friendship is a normal human need and want. You would be wrong because we learn earlier that Amy has no friends, and the only friend she has in their neighborhood, the moronic Noelle Hawthorne, is, according to Amy, nothing more than a prop for the purpose of her fake murder scheme. In other words she is totally, 100% committed to her scheme, yet she quickly ditches it in order to have companionship with the trailer trash girl living next door. It makes no sense.

2. When it is revealed that Amy is still alive, she is driving down a highway and defiantly eating a fast food burger. Good for her. She won't be worried about her body or what society has to say about it any more. Eat, eat, eat, lots of junk. It's all we see her doing as she hides out. And she gets fat. Her face gets fat, she gets a gut. I was thinking that she must have been hiding for like six months. No…it was day four of her being on the run. She was able to gain roughly twenty five pounds in 96 hours. How biologically odd. And thankfully for her, she is able to lose that weight just as quickly when she has to appear in sexy lingerie and have sex with Doogie Howser.

3. When Amy inexplicably keeps all her money with her when she inexplicably goes miniature golfing with her inexplicable new redneck friends, and then they inexplicably see her money and not so inexplicably steal it from her, she is left with no one to call except her ex-flame Doogie Howser. She and Doogie decide to meet at a riverboat casino on the Mississippi. There may be no more photographed place on earth than a casino. Why not meet at a McDonalds parking lot, that way you can eat all the fast food burgers you want and magically gain weight and then magically lose it, remain hidden and get some product placement money as well. 

4. When Amy goes to live with Doogie in his hidden cabin, she learns once inside that the outside of the place is under constant surveillance.  Once she decides to double cross Doogie she stages herself crying and in anguish in front of one of the windows so the cameras pick her up in a state of despair. And then once she kills Doogie and comes forward she tells police to look at the surveillance footage to prove she was a prisoner. But what about the footage prior to her double crossing Doogie? What about the footage of her strolling in to the cabin arm in arm with Doogie without a care in the world. Wouldn't they see that footage too? 

5. When Amy tells Nick she is pregnant, it is the final nail in his coffin. He can't leave her now. She is too crazy to be left alone with a kid and too manipulative to go to the authorities. She has won. Except, Nick has an ally, not only in his powerful NY attorney but also in Detective Boney on the local police force. He has people in power who know who Amy really is. He couldn't come forward in the interview with the tabloid woman Ellen Abbott and tell his entire side? Hell…wouldn't Sela Ward's TV host have great interest in that story? How is it that he feels so powerless?

I am Jack's Cold Sweat

After seeing Gone Girl, I was having a conversation with a famous director friend of mine. In order to protect his identity, and spare his career, I will call him Mr. X. Mr. X disliked Gone Girl as much as I did, but he thought it would get a Best Picture nomination. I was shocked, how could something so awful get a nomination? He said..."remember Avatar?" Sadly…I do remember Avatar. Avatar is a really atrocious film. The acting is beyond words it is so horrific. The story is obscenely incoherent. But like Avatar, Gone Girl has struck a chord with the public. People saw it in droves, and Avatar, in all it's awfulness, managed to get nominated. I am fearful that Gone Girl will as well. My one and only hope is that Avatar was a sci-fi movie with lots of bells and whistles and shiny things for the masses to gawk at, which is maybe why they flocked to it. The only bell or whistle or shiny thing for the masses to gawk at in Gone Girl is Ben Affleck's penis, which hopefully doesn't have the same eye candy appeal to Oscar voters as Avatar did.

I am Jack's Smirking Revenge

There is a scene in Gone Girl where the beautiful Rosamund Pike, as Amy Dunne, takes a hammer to her face and smashes herself with it. I think this is the only scene in the entire film with which I connected. Amy smashing her face with a hammer was the perfect visual representation of how I felt for two and a half hours watching Gone Girl. I think they should do a promotion where they hand out hammers to people as they enter the theater and wait and see how long they make it without smashing their own face in in order to escape the inanity playing out before them onscreen. 

I am Jack's Colon

You may think after having panned Gone Girl, that I am not a fan of it's director, David Fincher. You couldn't be more wrong. I really like most of Fincher's films. His less popular films, Zodiac and The Game, are among some of my all-time favorites, as are his more well known films Fight Club, Seven and The Social Network. Fincher is a brilliant and stylistically original artist. I just think that his style has failed with Gone Girl, not that he is a failure. 

So what style would have made Gone Girl better? It is interesting, but as I watched the final third of Gone Girl, the director I kept thinking of was David Lynch. Two of Lynch's films in particular, Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive.  Both of those films touched upon certain similar themes as Gone Girl attempted to touch upon, namely, the ugliness just beneath the surface of the American heartland's veneer (Blue Velvet), and the moral and ethical cancer at the heart of America's fame driven culture (Mulholland Drive). The main thing that Gone Girl becomes in it's third act is realist absurdism. No one does absurdism wrapped in a blanket of stylized realism better than David Lynch. Lynch's Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive are both dramas, comedies, tragedies, social commentaries and horror films all rolled up into one, which is exactly what Gone Girl unsuccessfully tried to do.

So, here is my pitch on "How to make Gone Girl a good film":  Start off by not having Gillian Flynn, who authored the book, write the screenplay. Have David Lynch, who should replace Fincher as director, write the screenplay, or better yet, have Charlie Kaufman write the screenplay, that would really turn the story on it's head. You can keep Ben Affleck in the lead if you like, and Carrie Coon and Kim Dickens in their roles as well. We replace Rosamund Pike with Reese Witherspoon in the lead role of Amy. Finally, we replace Neil Patrick Harris with the incisive and edgy talent of Alan Cumming and we jettison Tyler Perry for Samuel L. Jackson, who would bring a great deal of life, energy and power to the role of the lawyer. There you have it, I saved Gone Girl….you're welcome. If only some studio would wise up and put me in charge, then I could save all of Hollywood, and by extension…your soul…and the world.

© 2014

FOR REVIEWS OF OTHER FILMS RELEASED DURING THE HOLIDAY SEASON, PLEASE CLICK ON THESE LINKS TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING , WHIPLASH , BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) , FOXCATCHER , WILD , AMERICAN SNIPER , A MOST VIOLENT YEAR , THE IMITATION GAME , NIGHTCRAWLER , STILL ALICE , INHERENT VICE , SELMA , MR. TURNER , CAKE .

 

Pride: A Review

This is a SPOILER FREE review.

Pride, directed by Matthew Warchus and written by Stephen Beresford, is a film based on the true story of an unlikely alliance between a group of gays and lesbians, who raised money to help support a small mining town in Wales, and the miners they helped, during the UK Miners strike in 1984.

The ensemble cast is excellent across the board. Such great actors as Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton, Paddy Considine and Dominic West star, but lesser known talents are also on display, in particular Irish actor Andrew Scott, British actress Jessica Gunning and American actor Ben Schnetzer. 

Shnetzer plays Mark Ashton, a gay activist who conjures up the idea of raising money to support the striking miners.  I was shocked to learn that Schnetzer was American. His Northern Irish accent is impeccable. Mark Ashton was obviously a very charismatic and determined man, and Schnetzer is able to give him an inner life and vibrancy that truly brings him to life and never rings hollow.

Jessica Gunning plays Sian James, a Welsh miner's wife and mother to his children. Gunning makes Sian's dynamism feel real and natural and not forced and staged. Watching her character gain confidence, balance and power was really interesting. Sian's character arc is pretty remarkable and Gunning's portrayal of it does the real woman's journey justice.

Andrew Scott plays Gethin, a gay man in self-exile in London from his Welsh boyhood home and family. He is really fantastic. He carries a great wound with him that is never spoken, but which is palpable. When a woman from the mining town speaks his native Welsh to him on the telephone, it takes his breath away, and ours with it. I had not heard of Andrew Scott before this film, but damn, he is really good, I look forward to seeing more of his work.

As for the bigger names, Bill Nighy is just fantastic. He plays Cliff, an elder statesman from the Welsh mining town. He is, as always, flawless. His character doesn't speak much, but Nighy fills him with such a distinct inner life that you cannot take your eyes of off him. There is a scene between Cliff and Imelda Staunton's Hefina, who is an elder stateswoman of the Welsh mining town, and the two of them barely speak, but it is so understated, so well done, so well crafted and so highly skilled that it should be mandatory viewing for actors young and old. It is simple yet precise. Perfection.

Speaking of Imelda Staunton, she is a master. Her Hefina Headon is a powerhouse of a woman, both tough and kind, smart and funny. There is nothing so enjoyable as watching master crafts people, like Bill Nighy and Imelda Staunton, ply their trade.

As for the film itself. It is being billed as in the vein of The Full Monty and Billy Elliot. This is an accurate description. Those films are funny, political and poignant. Pride lives up to that billing. As I watched I thought to myself that these types of films are only really done well by the Brits. They have a way of being understated in both their comedy and their poignancy that American films struggle with. For instance, their are numerous scenes which are highly emotionally packed in Pride, yet they are done with almost no dialogue. The director lets the scene play out and we get to feel along with the characters, as opposed to in most American films we are told, either through dialogue, or music, what to feel. The Brits are good at letting silence do the work for them, while we Americans feel the need to make sure everyone is hit over the head with the emotion and meaning of a scene or of the comedy.

Pride, The Full Monty and Billy Elliot are stories that all came out of the economic turmoil of the Thatcher years, when the labor union movement was under full scale attack by the 'free-marketeers' and the 'free-traders'.  This has become fertile ground for British filmmakers, artists, musicians and writers over the years, and rightly so. What was really under attack during the Reagan-Thatcher years wasn't just the labor movement, or a certain economic system, what was really being attacked was a way of life, a culture, a tradition handed down from father to son. A tradition that bound together communities from one generation to the next. It is ironic that it was mostly conservatives who were at the forefront of decimating the labor movement in order to maximize profits, or in other words, to feed their greed. And yet, conservatives are supposed to cherish tradition, and community, and family, but their economic policies during the Reagan-Thatcher years obliterated the things they alleged to hold dear and that they claimed made our countries and communities great. The real heart breaking aspect of watching Pride is knowing that as noble as the miners and their cause is, and knowing how important it was that they win, they didn't. Organized labor is dead, and both the UK and the US as countries, and all of their people, are worse off because of it. There is no recovering from the cultural and economic damage done by Thatcher and Reagan. Seeing the struggle on film and knowing it ends badly is gut wrenching. It is also somewhat ironic that the gay rights movement has succeeded beyond it's wildest dreams since that time, while the labor movement is nothing but a ghost, although the gay community would still have to face the crucible of the AIDS epidemic as Reagan/Thatcher were dismantling labor. So while it took thirty more years for the gay community to make serious, lasting progress, those thirty years have only seen the denigration of the labor movement to the point of extinction. The truth is, more people probably know a gay person than know someone in a private sector union. Considering the heights that labor had soared to in our history, and the depths of the closet the gay community was forced into in their history, that is an absolutely remarkable thing to consider. Hopefully, in the next thirty years, labor will have made a Lazarus-esque rise as astounding and empowering as the gay community has in the last thirty. Sadly, I sincerely doubt that will happen, and all of us, whether gay or straight, management or labor, will be worse off because of it.


Frank: A Review

This is a SPOILER FREE review…for the most part.

Frank is the story of Jon, played by Domnhall Gleeson, who is a wannabe musician who stumbles into a gig with the art house band "Soronprfbs". Fronting the band is lead singer, Frank Sidebottom who wears a giant paper-mache head at all times. Frank is played by Michael Fassbender. Jon ends up replacing the previous keyboardist in the band, who has gone crazy. The film follows the trials and tribulations of Jon, "Soronprfbs" and Frank, in that order. The film is directed by Lenny Abrahamson and written by Jon Ronson and Peter Straughan.

Domnhall Gleeson does a good job of driving us through the story as Jon. He has an accommodating energy and presence which makes him a good narrator. His suburban, rock-star wannabe turning into a fish out of artistic water is interesting enough to keep you watching, but the script and direction don't keep you caring. I do look forward to seeing more of Gleeson in the future though, he strikes me as an interesting and developing talent.

In a supporting role, Maggie Gyllenhall plays Clara, a member of the band. Gyllenhall has been great in other films, I'm thinking of her role in Secretary as a prime example, so it isn't as if she lacks talent, but here she confuses caricature with character. It may not be all her fault. The film, at times, is so rudderless as to be lost-at-sea, so I doubt she received much direction. But you never lose the sense that she is play acting at being a real person. There isn't a single moment when she feels real. She never once does anything remotely interesting or genuine or shows Clara to be anything other than a Saturday Night Live sketch. Her work strikes me as being lazy and unfocused, but then again, so is the film, so I think the director must take the lions share of the blame. Which is a shame, because that character in the hands of a better or more imaginative actress, or director, could have been gold…instead the film suffers greatly because of it.

Frank is one of those films that spends the first 3/4ths of it's time being one thing, and then spends the last 1/4 of the film being something else. It either doesn't know what it wants to be or lacks the courage to be what it wants, and when it finally find some deeper purpose and meaning, it is too late, because the impact of the final twenty minutes is undermined by the lack of focus in the first hour and ten.

I found the film to be frustrating because it wastes what is a very interesting story, or at least what could have been a very interesting story and it throws away Michael Fassbender's fantastic performance. The majority of the film is about the band, the supporting characters and the oddity of their artistic process. What this lacks is a focus on the relationship between Gleeson's Jon and Fassbender's Frank. That relationship gathers no steam until the latter part of the film. When the film finally decides to be about something, namely about how fame, with all it's toxicity and corrosive effects, and our addiction to it, is like a mental illness, it shines, and is genuinely moving and insightful. Sadly, everything that leads up to this clarity is so muddled and unfocused that it dissipates the dramatic and human impact of Fassbender's performance and the film's climax. 

What the film needed to do was to be about Fassbender's Frank. Frank is interesting. The more we see Frank, the more we want to see Frank. The more we learn about Frank, the more we want to learn about Frank, and the more we learn about Frank the more we learn about ourselves, our culture and humanity in general. For some reason, Frank is sidelined. He is a sideshow to the main show of the bands other members. We are forced to focus on the supporting cast, the most famous of which, Ms. Gyllenhall, is so awful as to be unbelievably distracting. 

Frank is a film that can't figure out what it wants to be, and when it is at it's best, it let's Fassbender's talent and skill show us what it is about.  This should have been a character study with a laser like focus on Frank. Fassbender's performance is so heartbreaking, and so painstaking that I was deeply offended to see it squandered. We deserve better, and so does Michael Fassbender. With all of that said, and as frustrating an experience as it was, I am glad I saw the film for Michael Fassbender's performance alone.

The Skeleton Twins: A Review

THIS IS A SPOILER FREE REVIEW!!

One of the things I really like about living in Los Angeles, especially where I am by the beach, is that it rarely gets oppressively hot. I cannot stand the heat. Heat is my kryptonite, and when you combine that with the whole not-being-able-to-fly thing, you quickly will come to realize that I am a less-than-ideal Superman at best. We all have our weaknesses, so shoot me, wait…actually don't, I'm not made of steel either. Regardless, a few weeks ago it got hot. Brutally, barbarically, demonically hot. It was the kind of hot that reminds me of New York City in August and the stilted air while waiting for a subway train that makes you feel like you are standing in the worlds largest urinal. In other words…it was uncomfortably HOT. Luckily for me, a pretty young lady approached me with an ingenious plan to escape the heat. Her idea was to go somewhere where there was air conditioning. I immediately recognized her brilliance. So we decided to go see a movie. She wanted to see The Skeleton Twins, starring Kristen Wiig and Bill Hader. I consented. This is our story, this is their story.

The Skeleton Twins, directed by Craig Johnson and written by Johnson and Mark Heyman, is the story of estranged siblings Maggie and Milo, played by Kristen Wiig and Bill Hader, who come together after ten years of estrangement. Maggie flies to Los Angeles to pick up her brother Milo after he attempts to kill himself. She takes him back to their hometown in upstate New York to help him regain some mental and emotional stability. Although returning to 'home' may be the last thing that will give Milo any stability considering his personal, and the family's history.

Bill Hader as Milo is really great. Hader is obviously a great comedic actor, and this role affords him the chance to be bitterly and brutally funny, but what impresses the most is that he isn't trying to be funny. His comedy comes out of the natural circumstances and personality of the character. You watch him in this film and you forget he is Bill Hader, you just see Milo, who is a fully formed and completely believable human being. Hader never breaks from his commitment to character, and he is so naturalistic in his approach that his performance seems effortless. Milo is charismatic, funny and yet heartbreaking. Hader's work is seamless.

Kristen Wiig on the other hand never seems to find her character, and we see her exerting a great deal of effort in trying to "act". Having watched Wiig for years on Saturday Night Live and seeing her in Bridesmaids, I do not hesitate a single moment in calling her a comedic genius. She is a joy to watch when she is in her element. Sadly though, in The Skeleton Twins she is out of her element. She tries to be serious and heavy and dark, but she simply lacks the skill, endurance or commitment to do it believably. You can almost see how desperate she is to be taken seriously as an actress. The only time she seems to find her stride is when she and Hader have scenes which are nothing more than the two of them clowning around, lip-synching a Jefferson Starship song and getting high on Nitrous Oxide. The difference between Hader and Wiig in this film is that Hader is acting while Wiig is performing. Yes, Hader is funny and 'performs' as Milo, but we are seeing Milo perform, not Hader. Where with Wiig we are watching HER perform, and not Maggie. Part of the reason for this is that Milo is written to support Hader's 'performing' where as Maggie is not written to support Wiig's performing.

As crazy as this sounds, I couldn't help but feel that this film could have been really great if another more 'serious' actress were cast as Maggie. Wiig's castmate from Bridesmaids, Rose Byrne, for instance, comes to mind. Byrne is a very good actress, and she can do comedy, but she isn't funny…she's an actress. Wiig is someone who is funny who is trying to act, and that is not what the film needed. The reason being that you need to balance Hader's comedic energy with something more solemn and with more gravitas, as opposed to matching him with Wiig who has a similar comedic energy. Wiig is miscast as Maggie because Maggie needs to be the polar opposite of Milo in order for the film to work, but Wiig is not far enough from Hader to pull it off, and the film feels out of balance because of it.

Another actor of note, Luke Wilson, has a supporting role as Maggie's fiancé, Lance. Wilson is really great. He is one of those actors that sort of gets overlooked, for a variety of reasons, but he never fails to do excellent work. Lance would be a caricature in lesser hands, but Wilson gives him great depth and humanity out of which comes the comedy. Wilson turns what could have been a throw away character into a terrific asset for the film.

Ty Burrell, another great actor, also has a supporting role but his story line seems under written and is more a distraction than anything else. That is not to say that the writing is poor. It isn't. The Skeleton Twins is one of those times when a script is actually much better than the final film. You can see the intricacy and great depths of the writing if you know where to look and look hard enough…the use of water symbology for example (clearing brush by the dam, Moby Dick, Scuba lessons, etc). The script indicates a complexity and artistic maturity that the film fails to rise up to. As previously stated, I think the casting of Wiig in the lead is the main obstacle to that aspiration. The problem, of course, is that the film probably only got financing because Wiig was starring in it. Combine that with a marketing campaign that highlights the Wiig/Hader comedy scenes and bills the film as "laugh out loud funny", and you can see how the business end of things has undermined the artistic. This is a shame, because underneath all of the surface comedy, there is a great film trying to get out. We just need both the business people, and the artistic people, to have the courage to make the version of this film where it is a drama that is at times funny, rather than a comedy which tries to be dramatic.

With all that said, I didn't hate The Skeleton Twins. It was fine. A wasted opportunity, but fine. Bill Hader was, as they say, a 'revelation'. It was nice to see Luke Wilson again. It was also great to be out of the heat for two hours. While there are better options to avoid heat stroke, there are also worse. So if you want to avoid death by heat suffocation, why not go see The Skeleton Twins? The life you save, could be your own.

Calvary: A Review

*This review contains NO SPOILERS!!!*

Calvary, written and directed by John Michael McDonagh, is a small film that tackles big questions. It is not a perfect film, but despite it's flaws it is well worth seeing.

The film stars Brendan Gleeson, who is a truly fantastic actor, and he is as good as he's ever been here as Father James Lavelle. He brings a personal, national and spiritual history to his character that is written all over his face. His work seems effortless, which is always the sign of a master craftsmen on display. Gleeson is an actor comfortable being both gentle yet volcanic, kind yet steadfast.  His presence brings with it a rich and vivid inner life that pierces the darkness like a lighthouse on a rocky shore, giving the viewer something by which to emotionally navigate and also beckoning them to come closer to get a better look. Gleeson is 'one of those actors', the type of actor who deserves much more attention than he gets, but is probably not very interested in getting any attention at all.

Kelly Reilly, the quintessential Irish beauty, is also very good in a supporting role. She is, not unlike Gleeson, one of those actors who always draws the viewer in with her inner life, and we, like her character, are moths to the flame of her intrigue and can't help but be captivated enough to take a closer look.

The rest of the supporting cast is just okay. The weakest aspect of the film are some of the supporting actors. In particular, the two most well known and recognizable actors in supporting roles are not very good. Some supporting actors seem miscast, some seem to be cast in a different film. Regardless of that flaw, the film was strong enough to overcome it.

Besides Gleeson and Reilly, another great strength of the film is that it looks absolutely gorgeous. Director McDonagh uses the ruggedly bleak yet stunningly beautiful western Irish landscape to perfection. Whether it be the lone mountain off in the distance to symbolize salvation that is attainable but only through a great journey and struggle, or shots of rough surf crashing into the jagged coast line symbolizing the perils of our spiritual quest for meaning, McDonagh fills our eyes and sub-conscious with a visual story that succeeds even without his well crafted words.

Calvary, in case you don't know, is the place where Christ was crucified. Calvary, the film is about the crucifixion of modern man, the Catholic Church and one priest in particular. The questions raised by the film that make it so intriguing are…can Catholicism survive modernity with its narcissistic and spiritually vacant "free" market capitalism and "free" love,  and it's intellectually vapid atheism, among other competing gods? Can Christianity survive? Can Christ?  Or is Christ, and more specifically, Christ's message of forgiveness, the cure for the emptiness that plagues modern man? Can Christ's message also free us from the cycle of historical, national, personal and spiritual grievances born from our unwillingness, or inability to forgive? Can we as people, or the Catholic church as an institution, be brave enough to admit our sins, be penitent of them, and be humble enough to ask forgiveness for them? Or will we, like the Catholic Church of our time, be too arrogant, too self serving, too greedy, too lazy and too blind to ever do any of those things? Will we take the easy road of cheap grace and cynicism, even if the cynicism is hard won? And will our failure to be penitent and ask for forgiveness, or to be brave and give forgiveness to those that ask, lead us down the same path as the Catholic church, which leaves us as nothing but a smoldering pile of ruins to be gawked at by historians? 

The theme of Calvary is the struggle for man to find God. It is the struggle not only of our time, but of all time, and the film is well worth your time.

A LACK OF EMPATHY: Ethan Saylor, Down Syndrome and the Pandemic of Fear or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace Narcissistic Hysteria in a Nation of Eunuchs

In light of the shooting death of 18 year old Michael Brown by a Ferguson, Missouri  police officer, I re-post this article which I originally posted March 21, 2013, which deals with the killing of Ethan Saylor, a 26 year old man with Down's Syndrome, by three Maryland police officers. I believe many, but not all, of the thoughts expressed in this piece are pertinent to the situation playing itself out in Ferguson.

Today, March 21, is World Down Syndrome Day.  In honor of this occasion let us recount the tale of Ethan Saylor, a 26 year old man with Down Syndrome who, on January 11, 2013, went to see "Zero Dark Thirty" with his caregiver in suburban Maryland.  When the film ended Ethan's caregiver went to the bathroom, leaving Ethan briefly alone.  Ethan then went back into the theater to sit and watch the film again.  Theater employees asked Ethan to leave or to buy a ticket.  He did neither.  Three off-duty police officers who were working as mall security were called in and while forcibly subduing and removing Ethan from the theater, he died.  The coroner has ruled the death a homicide.  None of the officers involved have been charged with a crime or have even spoken to investigators.  Now, you may have a few questions at this point...like...why should I care? What does empathy, fear, eunuchs and hysteria have to do with anything?  And what does all this have to do with acting?  All excellent questions which I hope to answer as we go along.

Let's start with a definition of empathy.  According to Webster's, empathy is "The ability to understand another person's circumstances, point of view, thoughts, and feelings. When experiencing empathy, you are able to understand someone else's internal experiences."  Add to that definition "and bring it to life" and there you have a pretty accurate description of the art of acting.  Many people conflate empathy with sympathy, though they shouldn't.  Sympathy is "feelings of pity or sorrow for someone else's misfortune." Empathy is active, it takes you out of yourself in order to understand the internal workings of another, whereas sympathy is passive and self-centered, focusing on how you feel about the other as opposed to how the other feels.  Empathy is a great trait to have for an actor, sympathy is not.

Let's use the incident with Ethan at the movie theater as a case study in a lack of empathy.  As stated earlier, Ethan went with his caregiver to go see "Zero Dark Thirty".  After the film ended his caregiver went to the bathroom, leaving Ethan alone briefly.  At this point Ethan went back into the theater and sat down to watch the movie again.  Let us assume that a theater employee, an usher, saw him go back into the theater and sit.  The usher would easily be able to recognize that Ethan had Down's Syndrome by his physical appearance, he had all the physical traits and characteristics of someone with Down's.  At this point we have failure number one in our lack of empathy.  The usher could have simply ignored the situation, or pretended to not have seen Ethan.  Even if we give the usher the benefit of the doubt and presume that he did not know that Ethan had already paid for one ticket, the question must be asked, why couldn't he just let the young man watch the movie?  How many of us would just turn a blind eye to the situation?  What harm is there in that?  Well, an answer to that could be that the usher was fearful he would lose his job.  He is probably a young guy/girl and needs the money and can't risk losing the job.  So, he approaches Ethan and tells him he must buy a ticket or leave.  Ethan does neither.  

Here we have failure number two in our quest for empathy.  The usher would not, or was incapable of, feeling empathy for Ethan.  He couldn't place himself in Ethan's shoes and understand that Ethan just wanted to see the movie again and had no comprehension of money or tickets or rules or anything of the sort.  The usher could only focus on how Ethan's action affected him.  So, the usher goes and gets the manager.  Now the manager, we presume, is more experienced than the usher, may be older, may be not, but certainly is at least  equipped with the authority to bypass the rules and let Ethan watch the movie where the usher may not have felt he was authorized to do that.  So the manager arrives and asks Ethan to buy a ticket or leave.  Ethan does neither.  Instead of just letting it go, and understanding that Ethan is not, according to reports, causing a scene or disturbing other patrons, the manager now has failure number three in our search for empathy.  The manager doesn't think of how or what Ethan is feeling or thinking, he only focuses on how Ethan's actions are affecting him and he doesn't like it, so the manager calls mall security.  

Mall security, as was previously stated, are not the run of the milll rent-a-cop mall security.  These are three off duty Maryland Sheriffs Deputies.  They arrive on the scene and things take a turn for the worse.  The security guards/police officers approach and get the story from the theater manager.  Now instead of just pulling the manager aside and saying, "Hey, c'mon, this young man has Down's Syndrome, do we really want to make a federal case out of this?", they instead take the manager's side and tell Ethan he has to leave.  That is failure number four in our journey to discover the lost trait of empathy.  

At this juncture Ethan does something that is anathema to any law enforcement officer, he is 'defiant'.  Defiant is an interesting word choice, because some people observing Ethan's behavior would describe him as 'stubborn', a term commonly used to describe people with Down's Syndrome when they sulk and refuse orders, the security guards/police officers though describe Ethan as 'defiant'.  At this point we have failure numbers five and six in the eternal quest for empathy.  First, Ethan's caregiver returns and is looking for Ethan.  She discovers him in the theater and sees the commotion that is happening around him.  She explains to the officers that she can talk Ethan into complying if given the chance, but the officers are beyond talking at this point.  They disregard her advice, ignore her and have her removed from the area.  Then they physically attempt to move Ethan out of the theater.  Think about this for a moment, this is not some lone cop fighting for his life on a street corner in Baltimore with some thug but rather these are three grown men, with years of experience and training in law enforcement, and they decide the best course of action is to physically confront and remove a young man with Down's Syndrome, who has all the physical and mental limitations that come with it, from a suburban Maryland theater over a $10 movie ticket.  It gets worse, the three officers grab Ethan and throw him to the floor.  Standard operating procedure for law enforcement when immobilizing a suspect is to get them face down on the ground, arms spread wide with an officer on each wrist and another officer with a knee in the back of the neck to stop the suspect from getting up.   This is what these three grown men, with training and experience did to Ethan Saylor because he didn't pay $10 to see the same movie over again.  That is actually not an entirely true statement.  Ethan was physically attacked not because he didn't have a ticket, but because he was 'defiant' towards the officers and did not submit to their authority and comply with their demands.  In the attempt to force Ethan to comply, the officers killed him.

So this begs the question, what kind of men are these?  What 'man' would do that to someone with Down's Syndrome.  I hesitate to even call them 'men', for they only barely meet the minimum physical requirements to carry the title.  I prefer to call them eunuchs because they are horribly misshapen and malformed 'men'.  They are also obviously pathetic cowards completely devoid of any moral or emotional compass.  These 'men' are disgusting and revolting savages.  

I obviously have an opinion about these 'men' and it isn't favorable in the least, but what would I do if I were cast to portray one of these 'men' in a play or film?  It does an actor no good to hate the person they are playing. How would I begin to play these 'men' with any sort of depth or complexity if I already thought so little of them?  

To start, I would put their actions into the context of the world in which they live.  I would say that these cowardly 'men', are the product of a culture of fear.  Fear breeds cowardice and cowardice thrives on fear.  So these 'men' live in a world in which we are inundated with things to be afraid of, such as terrorists, that's a big one.  We used to be deathly afraid of the god-less communists, but now we are deathly afraid of the god-fanatic terrorists.  It's either too much God or not enough.  Other rampant fears are child molesters, drug dealers, gang bangers, earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, carbon monoxide, radon gas, mad cow disease, bird flu, nuclear weapons, guns, school shooters, serial killers, grizzly bears, rabies, coyotes, sharks, people who don't look like us, people who do look like us, your neighbors, strangers, friends, family, ourselves, others, sugary cereals and satanists, to name just a few.  

In a futile attempt to quell our multiple anxieties, this nation consumes more anti-anxiety medication than the rest of the world combined.  Our fear, born of a self-serving, myopic narcissism, has reached the level of hysteria, with daily breathless reports in the media of the next great danger that threatens our very existence.  These 'men' were born and raised into this madness, this pandemic of fear, and they absorbed that fear and hysteria and narcissism.  

Fear distorts and decays our ability to reason and think rationally.  A great example of this is that this week is also the ten year anniversary of the start of the Iraq war.  In the lead up to the war we were told that we were in mortal peril.  We heard all about mushroom clouds, anthrax attacks, suitcase nukes, clandestine meetings with terrorists, Saddam as Hitler, you name it and we were given it to fear about Iraq.  It all was a bunch of bullshit, but that didn't stop the vast majority of the populace from supporting the war.  There were people who said it was a bunch of bullshit from the get go, but those people were called traitors and marginalized and ignored.  No one listened to those people because no one was capable of hearing them,  everyone was in fever with the hysteria of fear.   

The culture that created those 'men' who beat and killed Ethan is the same culture that supports and endorses torture.  It is the same culture that refuses to hold accountable the government officials who ordered that torture and started an unprovoked war which killed hundreds of thousands.  People in Nuremberg were hanged for far less.  But this culture says we cannot prosecute our war criminals because it is thought to be too 'politically inconvenient' for anyone to do so, which is nothing less than aiding and abetting torture, a crime in and of itself.  

Continuing with the illusion of law and order which bore us these 'men',  if the bank forecloses on your house, do you know who comes to throw you out?  The sheriffs department, that's who.  The police departments are not here to 'protect and serve' the taxpayers, they are here to 'protect themselves and serve the powerful'.  How many sheriffs have gone to the homes of the criminal banksters who have swindled billions from pension funds and 401k's with their fraud and theft and dragged them out of their house and into the jail?  If you are a drug dealer or drug user you will go to prison for decades, but if you run a bank that launders billions in drug money, you are too big to prosecute, so you not only don't go to jail, the government will make you a deal where you get to keep all the profits and the taxpayers will cover the losses of any deal you make, legal or otherwise.  This is the world from which those 'men' were spawned, where 'law and order' is that the powerful buy the 'law' so as to maintain 'order' over the lowly.  

How could they not be misshapen and malformed eunuchs?  Those 'men' are perfect representatives of the culture which created them.   The fear that pervades our society has allowed for a virulent form of impotence to overcome us all.  It started with our great fear of the drunk driver, so we got roadblocks to stop us at checkpoints (anything to protect the children!!!) and it has now devolved into no-knock raids where SWAT teams break into houses and shoot dogs in their crates and people in their beds, yet no one in this nation of eunuchs says or does anything about it.  This is the new normal,  where we think the police will protect us but we really need protection from the police.  Everyday in this country law enforcement agents of one kind or another intimidate, assault, harass, beat and murder citizens.  These 'men' were birthed into this world, learned at it's knee and brought forth into the world the lessons they had mastered.  Torture, aggression and violence are all acceptable but only when they are the one's doing it.  The way they treated Ethan Saylor was the way they were taught to treat us all.  This is the context in which these 'men' came to be and in which they developed their understanding of the world.

So, how can I, the actor, be more specific in my internal choices when playing one these 'men'?  One way would be to understand that in the confrontation with Ethan, the stakes were not just a $10 movie ticket.  The stakes for these 'men' were nothing less than the survival of their entire universe.  For these 'men' could not allow their authority to be undermined or ignored.  Defiance cannot be permitted because if they did not impose order their psyches would implode.  Their entire worldview is dependent upon their believing that they are hero's, the good guys who save the day, and everyone who opposes them is an arbiter of chaos.  That is the battle here, it is not between three police officers and a man with Down's Syndrome, but rather between good versus evil, order versus chaos.  These 'men' HAD to subdue Ethan and force him to submit to their authority or everything that is right and good in the universe would crumble.  Chaos would upend the order and their authority would evaporate.  

The key to playing these 'men' is to understand that they see themselves as the ultimate hero figures.  The use of force is not only justified in this case but is demanded, for chaos cannot be permitted to exist in the face of the authority of order.  The 'men' were just imposing the will of their benevolent God, who bestows his great gift of law and order upon us, when they beat Ethan.  These officers HAD to impose their authority by any means necessary, regardless if it meant the killing of an innocent, because it was in the duty and service of the righteous and the good.  That is the way to get into these characters psyches and portray them with a depth and complexity, giving their actions motivations that go beyond a typical portrayal of evil for evil's sake.  Evil for perceived goodness sake is much more compelling, as Ethan no doubt noticed while watching "Zero Dark Thirty" before his untimely death.

In terms of playing a character like Ethan, well there have been many great actors who have played mentally disabled or Down's Syndrome characters.  Sean Penn and Leonardo DiCaprio to name two.  What those men brought to their roles were great detail, a childlike innocence and compassion, an awe of their surroundings and an unlimited ability to love.  This sounds like an apt description of Ethan Saylor from what I have read.   Ethan wasn't like the rest of us, warped by our fears and anxieties, he didn't worry about his taxes, or getting a promotion at work, or where his kids would go to college.  Down's Syndrome may have limited Ethan's intellect but it didn't limit his passion for life or his ability to love and be loved.  He was a young man with a great deal of heart, and an even greater deal of courage. 

As an acting exercise, try and find empathy for random people throughout your day.  If someone cuts you off in traffic, try and get out of your own head and thinking about how this person's actions affected you but rather think about what may be going on with them.  We never know where people are in their lives, maybe that person who cut you off just lost their job, or their daughter is in the hospital or their spouse just left them, who knows.  It is just an exercise, this person may in reality be just a jerk, but thinking that way won't give you a chance to exercise your imagination and your empathy muscles.   A strange side effect of this exercise is that you may develop a greater capacity for compassion and the world may become a better place for it, who knows.

So in conclusion, in honor of Down's Syndrome day, let us all remember Ethan Saylor and his family and loved ones.   The world is a lesser place because of his leaving it.  And let us also try and remember to have empathy for those with mental disabilities and those that care for them.  They don't want or need our sympathy, but they deserve our empathy and respect.