Philip Seymour Hoffman

ONE YEAR AGO I PUBLISHED THIS ARTICLE ON PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN DAYS AFTER HIS UNTIMELY DEATH ON FEBRUARY 2, 2014. I REPUBLISH IT NOW AS A TRIBUTE TO HIS ARTISTRY AND AS A SOMBER REMINDER OF HIS STRUGGLE.

There have been countless articles and commentaries about Philip Seymour Hoffman since his death this past Sunday. I doubt I can add much to the cavalcade of remembrances, but here are a few thoughts.

As a teacher, I occasionally will show film clips of actors that put a visual to a technique I am teaching. It is not something I do too often, but as I said, I occasionally do it. In talking with some clients after Hoffman's death, I realized that every time I showed a clip to students, it was of Philip Seymour Hoffman. That is how good he was, that I used his work to teach points to people and I never even realized it because I never even thought about it. Hoffman was so good that we never even had to think about it. His talent was off the charts, but the reason I used him as a teaching tool was because his skill, craft and technique were impeccable.

An example of his craftsmanship is his masterful use of his hands. Here is a clip from The Master that I use to show students about the effective use of an actor's hands in telling a story, specificity and detail in movement, defining character, and working with the camera. 

The clip above is also a great lesson in the use of physicality and focus. Hoffman doesn't give his opponent his focus, or square himself off to him completely until he fully commits to verbal combat, and the results are explosive, which he quickly realizes and tries to regain his composure for his audience members. Also, notice how when the shot goes wide, Hoffman uses his hands down at his waist level as opposed to at his shoulder level in the close up. He uses his hands to fill the shot he is occupying. He also doesn't randomly gesticulate, each movement is specific and detailed and punctuates his dialogue and voice.

The next scene is from Boogie Nights, and it is Hoffman's character Scotty J's introduction to the audience. It is an absolute masterpiece of an entrance. Hoffman uses the setting, his costume, his physicality and his breath to tell the audience immediately who this guy is and we instantly know him.

A few things to notice in this entrance. Hoffman doesn't just walk in and hit his mark. He enters at his own pace, still effected by the sick girl being carried out behind him. He hesitates, and awkwardly walks to his mark. Then at his mark, he surveys the pool party before him and takes a big breath before entering. This breath is fantastic in humanizing Scotty for the audience. We feel for him, he is a shlubby mess, but we feel for him after that breath. We understand that he is insecure, self conscious and fragile. That breath makes us allies of Scotty J. It is awesome. 

Then also notice when Scotty J meets Dirk Diggler that he uses his hands. He plays with his sunglasses, he tugs on his shirt in order to cover his belly, he indicates with his hands whom he is talking to or about. Even in the coverage of Dirk and Reed Rothchild where we only see Scotty's back, Hoffman still uses his hands, which gives even more of a visual life into what could have been a flat and basic scene in the hands of a lesser actor and director.

Finally, take a look at Hoffman's monologue from the film Happiness. See his use of breath to give inner life and fullness to his stillness. Then watch as the camera pulls back and his hands are revealed, he then rubs them against the chair. He becomes tactile when it serves the shot in order to show more of his character. When the shot was tight and he couldn't do that, he used his breath to reveal his character's inner life and wants, but when the camera is pulled back he can use his hands to reveal more and he does. (My apologies….sadly, the Happiness clip has been pulled from the internet, but I strongly encourage you to go watch Happiness directed by Todd Solendz, and in particular watch the scene where Philip Seymour Hoffman's character is at his therapists. You will know it when you see it. That is the scene I am describing here. As a replacement scene, check out Hoffman's work from Charlie Wilson's War. Notice his physicality, his posture and stance, his voice and breath, and finally how he uses his hands. Notice also how he adapts his physicality in order for his performance to be appropriate to the camera frame. This is master craftsmanship combined with sheer talent and passionate commitment. )

These are just three very brief examples of the craft and detail that Philip Seymour Hoffman brought to all of his work. I highly recommend viewing his entire body of work in order to see many more examples of mastery. The highlights of his work for me, can be seen in Boogie Nights, Magnolia, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Happiness,  Punch Drunk Love, Doubt, Capote, Synecdoche, NY and The Master. Watch his hands, watch his physicality, watch his focus and watch his breath. He uses everything in the actor's tool bag to bring life and humanity to all of his characters. I think that is the thing that strikes me most about Philip Seymour Hoffman. As a character actor, he wasn't given a whole lot of screen time to create memorable characters and bring them to life, but he used his talent and skill to bring the smallest of characters into clear focus, and his films were so much better for it.

I think that is why he is so beloved in the acting community. He was an average looking guy, with a doughy body and that usually means you don't get too far in this business, but he overcame all that through hard work, skill, commitment to craft and talent. He went from a character actor to a leading man for no other reason than he was great at acting. He didn't give a shit about celebrity or the Hollywood game or any of that nonsense. He loved acting and film and theatre, and that's why we loved him. Most people who get into acting don't do it to be a celebrity, they do it to be an artist, and Hoffman epitomized the actor as artist. In a business where casting decisions are made based on the size of one's Twitter following as opposed to one's skill, or where a "leaked porn video" is worth more cache than time spent working in the theatre, Philip Seymour Hoffman was a beacon of artistry that showed the way for artists to make the most of the opportunities Hollywood can present without buying into the nonsense of all that comes with it.

I was lucky enough to see Hoffman on Broadway a few times. Twice in "True West" with John C. Reilly and once in "Long Days Journey into Night". He was a magnetic stage actor, who filled theaters with his physical presence and drew the audience in with his delicate humanity. I regret not being able to see his Willy Loman in "Death of a Salesman", just like I will regret not being able to see him in any other plays or films. His death is a profound loss for actors and film and theatre lovers everywhere.

One final comment, in the past few days many people have written about Philip Seymour Hoffman and either their interactions with him, or how his death has effected them in some personal way. This is a natural tendency when someone famous dies. We all personalize these things because we feel as if we know the person because we've spent so much time watching them work that we feel we know them. We don't, of course, but that isn't going to stop me from doing the same thing.

To me, Philip Seymour Hoffman had the perfect life. He was a highly respected, award winning actor who worked in great art house type films (P.T. Anderson type-films) and also made some great money in more blockbuster type films. He did fantastic plays on Broadway and also directed other smaller plays. He had a fine family, three young kids, and enough financial security that he should never have had a care in the world. Perfect. Except it wasn't. This is something I have in common with Philip Seymour Hoffman. He had been sober 23 years leading up to his heroin overdose. I have been sober 22 years. We are both of the same generation, both from New York and we both have the same disease. He died of his disease, and I am still living with mine.

I was absolutely speechless when I heard he had died. After more than twenty years of sobriety you sort of assume that you have slain the dragon and you don't have to think about it ever again. The truth is, you haven't slain the dragon, you have just driven it from the kingdom, and if you don't build up large castle walls, the dragon can come back and obliterate you. It has happened to me, where the thought occurs to you that maybe, just maybe, you could have a beer, like a normal person, and your life could go on uninterrupted. You can convince yourself of nearly everything, and convincing yourself that you are normal is the insidious voice of the disease whispering in your ear. 

There are some things you can do to counter the dragon whispering in your ear about your normalcy. You can not listen, but that only works for so long. That is not a defense, it is a white knuckling attempt to ignore reality. The better option is to build big castle walls in the form of surrounding yourself with people who don't use. This almost always means eliminating your friends from you life. It can also mean eliminating a spouse or family member from your life. This is hard to do, but it is what is needed. You can fool yourself into thinking you can get by without it, but you won't. You will fail, and you will die. I know, I know…"I'm loyal", "I'd never turn my back on my friends/wife/family etc etc". Yeah, I get it. You're the exception to the rule. The rules don't apply to you.  Your recovery will be different. 

Bullshit. No it won't. You will fail, and you will die. This is reality. Reality is that you should not go to bars, or parties or family gatherings if there will be drinking there. You can't go. If people don't get it…fuck them. You must be as relentless against the disease as the disease will be against you. The disease doesn't care how, why or with whom you use…it only cares that you use. You must be as vigilant as the dragon, and this son of a bitch dragon, he don't sleep.

If you don't have the disease but someone you love does, these rules apply to you as well. You must be as ruthless as the disease. You can cut no slack, you can offer no sympathy, you can only offer a way out, and that is contingent upon the user stopping their use. You cannot argue, or debate or bargain. The deal is, you stop using, and I'll be your best friend and ally. If you use, I will not tolerate your presence. You have to hold yourself to that. It also wouldn't hurt to be an example and not use yourself, even if it isn't "your problem". The truth is, you need to change your life almost as much as the addict does, so be an example of courage through the changes you make.

I've heard and read a lot of people saying Hoffman was "selfish" or an "asshole" for loving the needle more than he loved his kids. I find this line of thought really repulsive and misguided. Hoffman had a disease that killed him. It is a truly cunning disease that doesn't change how much you love people, but it does change how you love people. So hearing people diminish Hoffman's struggles by saying he simply chose this way of life is infuriating to me. That is not to say that those things have no place being said to an addict, they do. If saying those sorts of things makes someone stop using, then go crazy with it. One of my favorite things to say to a male addict is to tell him to "be a man", meaning, clean up and take care of your family and kids and life…"be a man!" (by the way, this is only an option to use if the person saying it has been through recovery and is sober themselves…please keep that in mind).  Here is a brief clip of the approach:

 It might work, it might not, but when the disease has a hold of someone, you do whatever it takes to wrest control away from it, and if that means getting rough, then you get rough. The way I see it is this, when someone in your life is in the throes of addiction it can be a nuisance, an annoyance, a nightmare and a pain in the ass, and you can say all sorts of insensitive and outlandish things like "you're selfish" or "you love the needle more than you love your kids". But when someone dies from addiction, you should say none of those things, all you can say is, it is a tragedy, and seeing it any other way simply reveals you to be an emotionally immature, empathetically obtuse, narcissistic nit-wit and jackass. 

In conclusion, the world lost a truly remarkable artist this past week to a disease that is as unscrupulous as any. I hope we take both Philip Seymour Hoffman's fantastic work and tragic death and use them as lessons for our art and life moving forward. I know I will use it as a joyous reminder of the artistry of acting, and a terrible and tragic reminder that the dragon never sleeps.

2014 Slip-Me-A-Mickey™® Awards

SLIP-ME-A-MICKEY AWARDS

The Slip-Me-A-Mickey™® awards are a tribute to the absolute worst that film and entertainment has to offer for the year. Again, the qualifying rules are simple, I just had to have seen the film for it to be eligible. This means that at one point I had an interest in the film, and put the effort in to see it, which may explain why I am so angry about it being awful. So any vitriol I may spew during this awards presentation shouldn't be taken personally by the people mentioned, it is really anger at myself for getting duped into watching.

The prizes are also pretty simple. The winners/losers receive nothing but my temporary scorn. If you are a winner/loser don't fret, because this years Slip-A-Mickey™®  loser/winner could always be next years Mickey™® winner!! Remember…you are only as good as your last film!! 

Now…onto the awards!!

WORST FILM

The nominees are….

Noah : I had very high hopes for Noah. The films director, Darren Aronofsky, is one of my favorite directors. The films star, Russell Crowe, is one of my favorite actors. I figured with the two of these men involved, Noah would be a success. I could not have been more wrong. Noah is an absolute atrocity of a film. I do not know how it is possible, but somehow, they spent $200 million to make this film and yet it looks unconscionably cheap. There are these 'fallen angels' characters called The Watchers in the film, which are really nothing but talking rocks, and they look like something that was discarded from a "Land of the Lost" episode from the mid-70's.  We are supposed to have some sort of emotional connection with one of these rocks, the problem of course is…IT'S A ROCK. Also, not to be a "rockist", but all the rocks look the same. I haven't even gotten into how they distorted the story of Noah from the bible for no apparent reason at all other than they just felt like it. This was a weird, useless, and awful film. How they were able to screw up one of the slam dunk stories of all time is beyond me. Awful, brutal, atrocious. This movie was so bad that I was unable to write a review of it. I just could not put words to my loathing.

Transcendence : Oh dear, oh dear…Transcendence.  Let's start with the…positive?This movie had a whole bunch of interesting ideas that I am all into. The singularity + the evolution of man + the creation of gods + technology run amok = I am on board. Throw in a pretty stellar cast, which includes Johnny Depp and I am in line for tickets. Well, I went and saw this in the theaters. This movie brings up all sorts of questions involving my equation above, but then it just drops them for no apparent reason and wanders around the desert waiting to die of dehydration or disinterest, whichever comes first. Disinterest comes first.  A total waste of a film. And not only did it blow, it looked really awful. A criminally boring and utterly moronic film. I saw this film a week or so after I saw Noah last April…I was so scarred by that doubly horrific experience I have been rendered completely unable to write a single word about either film until now.

Gone Girl : What frightens me most about Gone Girl…is that there are people out there who loved it. What is wrong with people? This film is an unadulterated disaster area. I am a huge David Fincher fan, love his work, but this movie is just horrendously terrible. I would rather smash myself in the face with a hammer than watch this movie again. See my review here. Gone Girl .

Godzilla : I love Godzilla. As a kid, Godzilla and Planet of the Apes were my things. I am always on board with Godzilla. I will watch any piece of crap Godzilla movie no matter how absurd and poorly made just because I love Godzilla. You know why I hated this Godzilla movie? Because Godzilla is barely in it. If you are gonna title your film Godzilla, you better make damn sure that Godzilla gets a whole lot of screen time. There is nothing worse than a Godzilla tease. What a piece of crap. I pray Godzilla rises from the depths of the Pacific to kill us all so we don't have to watch the sequel to this dog. My full review is here. Godzilla .

And the loser is…NOAH. What a pile of steaming poop. This movie was so bad I was praying for God to flood the earth as I sat in the theatre because I would rather have all of humanity drowned than watched another moment of this movie. Sadly, both God…and Darren Aronofsky let me down.

WORST PERFROMANCE OF THE YEAR

Baby - American Sniper : There have been articles written about this fake baby. I find the whole thing hysterically funny. But here is the thing…this fake baby incident is symbolic of what is wrong with the film. The reason they used a stupid doll is because the baby they had lined up was sick, and the backup baby never showed. So…in order to stay on schedule and budget…they just shot it with a doll. So it was more important to Clint Eastwood to "get it done" than it was to "get it done RIGHT". And hence we have the overwhelming problem with American Sniper and it's very bad acting, it's very bad cinematography, and it being a really rushed and cheap looking film. Regardless…congrats to fake baby for doing an awful job!! But just between me and you Fake Baby, you were more lifelike than most of the actual human actors in the film.

MOST OVERRATED FILM OF THE YEAR

Boyhood : Here is the thing, ever since Boyhood came out, all I have heard from critics and the like is how it is so truly amazing. They say over and over that Boyhood is such "a glorious and intimate portrait". Hogwash. It is none of those things. Boyhood is getting praise only because it was shot over twelve years…which, admittedly, is quite an achievement. I mean, it is hard to shoot a film over twelve weeks, never mind twelve years. But here is the problem…even if it was shot over twelve years…it still has to be good, right? The problem with Boyhood is...that the movie is just not good. There is actually no story there. The main character never responds or reacts to anything that happens in his life. Nothing ever really actually happens in the whole movie. The acting is also…and lets be honest…not good. I love Patricia Arquette, I really do, she is one of my favorite actresses, but not only does she not deserve awards consideration, she is actually distractingly bad in the movie. Same with the two kids…sorry to say that…I mean they are, or were, kids after all, but they seem to get progressivley worse at acting as the years went by. Ethan Hawke is the only actor who fares well and I think that is because he is so comfortable in front of Linklater's camera and with his style of work. I am a fan of Linklater, I really like most of his films, but at the end of the day Boyhood is nothing more than a 'novelty' or a 'gimmick' or a 'parlor trick' due to it's extended twelve year shoot. However you describe Boyhood, you cannot describe it as a good movie. That is my Boyhood rant!!

P.O.S. HALL OF FAME 

The inductees are….

Bill Cosby : A bunch of years ago I saw Bill Cosby on some talk show telling kids to stop acting like fools and pull your pants up etc. It didn't really register with me since I wear my pants at the 'correct' level around my waist. But what did bother me was that Cosby was preaching to people without giving the slightest nod to his own checkered past. I am not talking about these current rape allegations, or should I say current allegations of past rapes, but rather the well known fact that he had a cheated on his wife and had an illegitimate child with the woman. I found it strange because I thought he would be more credible and more effective if his approach was to say , "hey, I've done dumb things, we all have…but you can turn it around and make better decisions".  Cosby's approach was the exact opposite of that. It seemed so strange to me that Cosby was telling people how awful and stupid they were while never acknowledging his own faults which were public knowledge!! It was like he was so willfully blind to his own transgressions that he assumed everyone else was blind too. Then all of these rape allegations came out and I thought…hmmm…Cosby really is as big a self-absorbed, delusional asshole as I thought he was back then. So…since Cosby has not been found guilty of anything, I cannot officially call him a rapist…but I can induct him into the Piece of Shit Hall of Fame. Congrats Bill…you gigantic piece of shit. And yes, it is purely coincidental that Bill Cosby is mentioned for the first time on my blog in a posting about the "Slip-Me-A Mickey" awards.

Stephen Collins : It is the height of irony that Stephen Collins came to fame playing a pure as the driven snow preacher on "Seventh Heaven". Now he has been caught on tape confessing to molesting underage girls. Reverend Camden has got some serious 'splainin' to do.  Stephen Collins strikes me as someone who created a character in order to balance out his psyche. Reverend Camden was so thoroughly good, a spiritual and soulful man, because deep down Stephen Collins was so very bad, with a malignant cancer eating away at his tortured soul. Just more proof that nothing is ever really what it appears to be. So…a tip of the cap and a firm extension of the middle finger to Stephen Collins for his induction into the Piece of Shit Hall of Fame. You are in good company, you useless piece of shit.

Thus ends the first annual Slip-Me-A-Mickey™® awards!! To the winner/losers…don't take it personally…and hope I don't see you again next year!! To my readers…thanks for tuning in…see you again next year!!

In case you missed all the merriment at the actual Mickey™® awards…click here to find all the nominees and winners…THE MICKEY™® AWARDS

2014 MICKEY™® AWARDS

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the First Annual Mickey™® Awards!! In the crowded field of awards, be it the Oscars, Emmys, Grammys, Tonys or even The Nobel Prizes, The Mickeys™ ® are the ultimate award, the pinnacle of artistic achievement, the highest honor known to mankind! 

A quick rundown of the rules and regulations of The Mickeys™®…The Mickeys are selected by me. I am judge, jury and executioner. The only films eligible are films I have actually seen, be it in the theatre, via screener or VOD. I do not see every film because as we all know, the overwhelming majority of films are not even remotely worth seeing, and I am a working man so I must be pretty selective. So that means that just getting me to watch your movie is an accomplishment in and of itself…never mind being nominated or even winning!

The Prizes!! The winners of The Mickey® award will receive one acting coaching session with me FOR FREE!!! Yes…you read that right…FOR FREE!! Non-acting category winners receive a free lunch* with me at Fatburger (*lunch is considered one 'sandwich' item, one order of small fries ,you aren't actors so I know you can eat carbs, and one beverage….yes, your beverage can be a shake). Actors who win and don't want an acting coaching session but would prefer the lunch…can go straight to hell…there are NO SUBSTITUTIONS with The Mickey™® Awards prizes. But if you want to go to lunch and we each pay our own way, or better yet, you pay for me... that is cool.

Ok…so sit back…relax….and enjoy the first annual Mickey™® Awards!!

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

The nominees are...

Robert Elswit - Inherent Vice + Nightcrawler : Elswit had a hell of a year with these two great films. He has done extraordinary work with P.T. Anderson in the past, most notably with Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood. I love Elswit's work, it is so beautiful and precise that it leaves me slack jawed time and again, and Inherent Vice and Nightcrawler are no exceptions. Just truly, truly phenomenal work.

Robert Yoeman - Grand Budapest Hotel : Grand Budapest Hotel is such an odd and quirky looking film and Yoeman is to thank for that. He creates such an original and unique visual look and feel to this film that it feels like some sort of dark and bizarre child's storybook come to life.

Bradford Young - Selma + A Most Violent Year : Bradford Young is not someone I had heard of before this year. After watching Selma and A Most Violent Year, I think we are going to be hearing a lot more about him in the years to come. He brings a particular look to his films that gives them a distinct visual texture.

Dick Pope - Mr. Turner : As I wrote in the review of Mr. Turner, if you stopped the projector and put a frame around any scene in the film, you could hang it in any museum in the world. Pope's work is just staggeringly incredible. Pope recreates the world as the genius painter Turner saw it, with vibrant colors and vivd textures. Even in the more basic scenes, set inside where the visuals could have been mundane, Popes framing and use of shadow is the work of a true master.

Larry Smith - Calvary : What I loved about Smith's work in Calvary is that he helped tell the story with his visuals. There are long shots of sweeping Irish vistas, or a lone mountain off in the distance, or the relentless surf crashing against the frail Irish seaside cliffs, and all of those beautiful shots helped to convey the internal life of the main character and the grander symbolic story the film tries to tell. 

And the winner is…DICK POPE - MR. TURNER: Robert Elswit seemingly had this award wrapped up. His work in Inherent Vice and Nightcrawler was staggeringly good and put him out way ahead of anyone else. But then I went and saw Mr. Turner and was left stunned at the unbelievable intricacy and beauty of Dick Pope's work. Pope put on a masterful display with his cinematography in Mr. Turner, and gets a much deserved, and highly coveted Mickey award for his ingenious work.

BEST SCREENPLAY

The nominees are...

Birdman - Birdman is a really strong script, maybe even great, but it has one flaw…it bungles its ending and therefore disrupts the rhythm of the film. Everything leading up to the ending, and aborted endings, is fantastic though.

Inherent Vice - Inherent Vice is adapted from the Thomas Pynchon novel of the same name. The story is so complex as to be staggering, yet the script is able to pull everything together and keep things coherent enough on multiple layers to make the film a success. Inherent Vice is politically, mysteriously and psychologically captivating and at times hysterically funny.

Whiplash - Whiplash is a really tight film with no wasted effort or energy. The script is the same way, with no fat to cut, and that is a true rarity in film these days.

Pride - The script for Pride is a true gem, bringing together historical fact and personal fiction to create an intimate story with great heart. The pitfalls that Pride faced were numerous, from the trap of sentimentality to preachiness to the very tangible danger of losing its pace, but the well honed script keeps it all on the right track. Pride is political but not preachy, funny but not cloying, emotionally vibrant but not maudlin.

Nightcrawler - Nightcrawler is such great script because it gives us a peek into a world we never get to see, the specific world of the seedy L.A. night and the news hounds and misfits who cover it. Every character is an original, and every character's arc brings surprises and growth.

And the winner is…PRIDE : Stephen Beresford's script is incredibly well done and was able to pull ahead of the tied for second place Whiplash and Inherent Vice to win this years Mickey. Whiplash's script was great, but it was really the execution that made that film shine, and Inherent Vice had one helluva well written script, but in the final analysis it just couldn't push past Pride for the win.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

The nominees are...

Imelda Staunton - Pride : As with Best Supporting Actor nominee Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton is an old school British actor of the highest order. Her work in Pride is so exacting, detailed and above all else, grounded, that she perfectly inhabits a role that is representative of not only a single individual but of the entire region of southern Wales. The scene where Nighy and Staunton quietly make sandwiches together should be mandatory viewing for actors and directors alike for it's subtlety, simplicity and storytelling effectiveness.

Tilda Swinton - Snowpiercer : Tilda Swinton's middle manager mini-Hitler in Snowpiercer is a piece of great acting because it embraces it's absurdity while never embellishing it. Swinton possesses a rare and particular talent that is impossible to duplicate which she uses to fill even the most outrageous characters with a wounded yet powerful humanity.

Emma Stone - Birdman : Emma Stone goes head to head with not only Michael Keaton but also Edward Norton in Birdman and she does more than just hold her own, she shines. Stone is so good in Birdman, her work so effortless yet effective, that she nearly steals the whole show. Her monologue with her father (Keaton) when he accuses her of using drugs, is so driven and honest that it is staggering. I have always liked Emma Stone, and found her to be an appealing persona, but after Birdman I more than like her…I deeply respect her.

Kelly Reilly - Calvary : Kelly Reilly, much like her Calvary counter part Brendan Gleason, has an energy about her that compels the viewer to look closer, and when they look closer a deeply ingrained, mysterious and profound sadness becomes evident. Reilly fills her character in Calvary with a vivid internal life that seeps out of her every pore and radiates it's darkness onto every scene she inhabits. Reilly is a serious and quality actress and her work in Calvary hints at even greater success in her future.

Jessica Chastain - A Most Violent Year : Chastain is in the midst of a pretty incredible run of performances over the last bunch of years. She has gone from being a nobody to establishing herself as arguably the best actress working today seemingly overnight. Of course, it wasn't overnight, she has spent her entire life honing her craft, so much so that her work is almost always seamless. In A Most Violent Year, Chastain once again lights up the screen with her intensity, luminous talent and skill, so much so that the film should have made her the center piece of the film. As is usually the case, this film needs more Jessica Chastain, not less.

Rene Russo - Nightcrawler : Rene Russo quietly gives a subtle and exacting performance as a TV news producer on the downside of her career in Nightcrawler. It could be argued that Russo herself is on the downside of her Hollywood career, having been absent many years from the scene of major films. But in Nightcrawler, she creates a smart and savvy character with specific intentions and purpose. The scene where Gyllenhaal's Lou Bloom extorts Russo for sex is absolutely fantastic because Russo is so internally alive while maintaining her exterior mask. It is a great scene and Russo is a terrific asset to one of the best films of the year.

And the winner is…EMMA STONE - BIRDMAN : Stone's work in Birdman really impressed the hell out of me the first time I saw it, and after watching it again it catapulted her to victory in The Mickey's over the British juggernaut Imelda Staunton. Both performances were really solid but I thought Stone really brought it all together in her monologue with Keaton (the drug use accusation scene). Congrats to Ms. Stone, I look forward to your collecting on your much deserved prize.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

The nominees are...

Edward Norton - Birdman : Norton, not unlike his co-star Keaton, portrays a character that is uncomfortably close to his actual professional persona. Norton is so good in Birdman in a role that so many other lesser actors would have turned into caricature that is is difficult to overstate. Norton is one of the great actors of his generation and yet is terribly undervalued and under appreciated. I hope that his work this year in both Birdman and Grand Budapest Hotel signals a return to working in  high quality films deserving of his talents and efforts.

J.K. Simmons - Whiplash : Simmons is an old pro, having been around for along time as a blue collar, working actor. Whiplash was his chance to devour the type of role that he had been waiting his whole career to get offered. He doesn't disappoint. The thought of another, maybe more famous actor, playing Simmon's role in Whiplash, makes me shudder at the thought of a lesser skilled, bigger name just playing the bluster and not embodying the focused fury like Simmon's did. Due to the usual Hollywood name-game, J.K. Simmons may not get another shot to play a role as great as this, but boy did he absolutely slay this dragon.

Bill Nighy - Pride : I've been surprised and disappointed that Pride has not received more awards love this year. It is a really well made film filled with intricately detailed performances by a whole host of actors and actresses. Bill Nighy may not have the most showy of all the parts in Pride, but he does such pain staking, heart breaking and meticulous work in it that he stands out above an exceedingly excellent cast.

Josh Brolin - Inherent Vice : Josh Brolin goes toe to toe with Joaquin Phoenix in Inherent Vice and not only survives but thrives. Brolin is so good in Inherent Vice that it is shocking. There is never a hint of self awareness or the whiff of performance in his committed portrayal of a conservative cop/ part-time actor named Bigfoot. Brolin chews the scenery like he chews a platter of weed and the film is substantially enhanced by his stand out performance.

Michael Fassbender - Frank : The biggest disappointment with the film Frank is that it wastes and often times ignores the truly stellar work that Michael Fassbender does in it. Fassbender's Frank wears a giant paper mache head throughout the majority of the film, yet Fassbender is able to create a vivd and specific character even under the that over-sized mask. Fassbender radiates a genuine humanity and tenderness that is really fascinating to watch. And when the paper mache head comes off, Fassbender is so captivating it is breath taking. It is just a shame that his performance wasn't more a focus of the film.

Toby Kebbell as Koba - Dawn of the Planet of the Apes : I know what you're thinking…how can a CGI monkey be nominated for the holiest of holies…a Mickey Award? Well…let me first say that Koba is not a monkey…he is a Bonobo, one of the great apes. I only point this out because apes get really touchy about being called monkeys…and rightfully so. Secondly…and this is the truth...Koba is the Marlon Brando of ape actors. This character is so spectacular, and so well done, that I kept wishing that he killed Ceasar and we could look forward to two or three more Koba films. Toby Kebbel 'plays' Koba, and is almost never mentioned, while Andy Serkis who plays Ceasar gets all the love. Not to take anything away from Serkis, who is a genius in his own right, but Kebbell's Koba is an absolute masterpiece, and I really mean that. The scene where he plays the fool for the humans in order to get their weapons and kill them, is as good as anything seen on film this year. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is an entertaining, though not great film, but Koba is such great character, and Kebbell does such extraordinary work in it, that he is more than deserving of this Mickey nomination.

And the winner is…J.K. SIMMONS - WHIPLASH : This was an excruciatingly close race. At one point every sinlge actor on this list had some time in the lead. As stated previously, I watched Birdman just a few weeks ago for the second time and Norton edged ever closer to Simmons, but Simmons held on for the much deserved win.

BEST ACTOR 

The nominees are...

Miles Teller - Whiplash : Miles Teller is absolutely phenomenal in Whiplash. He brings both physical and emotional precision to a role that a lesser actor would have filled with wandering ambiguity. I was fortunate enough to be able to read the script prior to filming, and the thing that stuck out to me was that this film could have been an absolute disaster depending on who was cast in the lead (and the skill of the director). I am thrilled that Teller was the perfect actor for the part, and his performance is the cornerstone upon which the film is built, without him it all crumbles.

Michael Keaton - Birdman : Michael Keaton, like the mythological Phoenix, has arisen from the ashes of his smoldering career. Keaton, with his Batman history, makes Birdman more than just an insider's look at life in the acting world, but artfully blurs the lines between reality and fantasy. For all of Keaton's prior success, one can't help but feel that his career never lived up to his proficient talent, but with Birdman, Keaton is able to spread his acting wings and hit the artistic heights that seems so imminent all those years ago.

Ralph Fiennes - Grand Budapest Hotel : Ralph Fiennes has always been an exquisitely detailed and specific actor who creates characters with a certain external restraint yet a meticulous internal complexity. In Grand Budapest Hotel, he proves once again that he is a craftsmen of the highest order. Prior to Grand Budapest Hotel, no one would have ever thought of Fiennes as a comedic actor, but here he brings all his technique and talent to bear, and the results are as spectacular as anything he has done in his many much revered and praise worthy dramatic roles.

Jake Gyllenhaal - Nightcrawler : To me Jake Gyllenhaal has never really hit his stride as an artist. His performance in Brokeback Mountain was good, but was overshadowed by the vastly superior work of Heath Ledger. His earlier work in Donnie Darko was interesting, but more quirky than powerful. His forays into potential stardom were underwhelming at best. In Nightcrawler though, Gyllenhaal hits his full stride as an actor and absolutely crushes the role. He owns the screen in a way that he has never been able to before. His commitment to such a bizarre and intense character required not only charisma and skill, but copious amounts of focus and energy. His performance is magnetic and repulsive all at the same time, which is a testament to his talent and his artistry.

Brendan Gleason - Calvary : Gleason's performance in Calvary is so finely crafted that it is easy to overlook, as the other, lesser awards (I'm looking at you, Oscar!!) have all done. Gleason brings such a ponderance and history to his character that his performance is the center of gravity for the film, and keeps the story and other characters and from spinning off into oblivion. Gleason tells the entire complicated story of his character, the Irish people, and the Catholic church, with nothing more than a poignant look during a close up. Gleason is one of the truly great, and under appreciated actors of his time.

Joaquin Phoenix - Inherent Vice : Speaking of one of the great actors of their time…Joaquin Phoenix is as original and genius an actor as we have working in film today. He brings the same intense commitment as a Daniel Day-Lewis, but combines it with an unnervingly wild unpredictability. Phoenix is an otherworldly talent and a master craftsman. His work in Inherent Vice is just another in a long line of remarkable performances in the last few years.

And the winner is….MICHAEL KEATON - BIRDMAN : This was a tough one. Miles Teller was actually in the lead until I watched Birdman for a second time just last week. Keaton's performance is really fantastic, just a truly superb job by the crafty Hollywood veteran. Teller got beaten by a nose this year, but I have a funny feeling we are going to be hearing a lot more from him in the future.

BEST ACTRESS

The nominees are...

Reese Witherspoon - Wild : Reese Witherspoon is as good as she has ever been in Wild. She fully commits to her flawed character by rolling around in the muck and mire of her messy life, but maintains enough of her movie star charisma and magnetism to keep us watching and caring. It is a credit to Witherspoon that she took a part that might mussy up her good girl image. I hope she keeps going in this direction because she can be really interesting when she isn't held back by the expectations of others and the market place.

Julianne Moore - Still Alice : Julianne Moore is as consistently great an actress as we have in the film world. She may not always choose the greatest projects, but when her mastery of craft and voluminous talent are given the right material with which to soar, she is as good as it gets. Still Alice is, at it's best, a barely mediocre film, but Moore's work in it is a master class in the art of acting.

Charlotte Gainsbourg - Nymphomaniac : Charlotte Gainsbourg, unquestionably, had the most difficult role of any of the actresses nominated. In Lars Von Trier's Nymphomaniac, Gainsbourg plays a woman who is simultaneously degraded and empowered, desecrated and sanctified. The overwhelming complexity of her work is only overshadowed by her mammoth courage in agreeing to take it on. 

Felicity Jones - The Theory of Everything : While Eddie Redmayne's performance is the one getting all the attention, it is Jones work that is the straw that stirs the drink of The Theory of Everything. Jones brings a charisma and genuineness that drives the entirety of the film. While Redmayne's acting may be more externally impressive, Jones subtly crafted performance is the heart and soul of the film.

And the winner is…JULIANNE MOORE - STILL ALICE : Witherspoon and Jones both give solid performances, but it was actually Charlotte Gainsbourg who comes in second to Moore. Julianne Moore in Still Alice gives a master class in maintaining a vivid interior life and focus that every actor can learn from.

BEST ENSEMBLE

The nominees are...

Pride : Pride boasts a myriad of really outstanding performances, including but not limited to, Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton, Paddy Considine, Dominic West and Jessica Gunning. Nighy and Staunton have already received Mickey nominations, but three other actors deserve particular recognition for their stand out work, Ben Schnetzer, Andrew Scott and George MacKay. Pride is filled with consistently outstanding acting across the board.

Inherent Vice : Inherent Vice showcases magnificent work from Joaquin Phoenix and Josh Brolin, both Mickey nominees, but also boasts sterling supporting acting from the likes of Reese Witherspoon, Benicio del Toro, Owen Wilson, Jena Malone and Katherine Waterson. The acting in Inherent Vice is top notch from top to bottom.

 Selma : Selma highlights a cornucopia of solid and sometimes spectacular acting, the most notable of which is David Oyolowo (as MLK), Carmen Ejogo ( as Coretta King), Tim Roth, Tom Wilkinson, Stephen James and Wendell Pierce. While there are some casting mis-steps (Oprah!!), the overall excellence of the cast more than overcomes them.

Mr. Turner : Mike Leigh, the director of Mr. Turner, is an actor's director. In Mr. Turner Leigh inspires distinguished performances from a wide array of talent, the most notable of which is Timothy Spall in the lead. Mr. Turner also sports a plethora of solid supporting performances which include Dorothy Atkinson, Marion Bailey, Paul Jesson, Lesley Manville and Martin Savage. The acting is so good in Mr. Turner that even the background actors give noticeably impressive performances which is a credit to their commitment, professionalism and most likely, their respect for their esteemed director.

 Birdman : The cast of Birdman is filled with well known actors and actresses and all of them give impressive performances and none of them strike a single off-note. Michael Keaton, Edward Norton and Emma Stone have their precious Mickey nominations in hand, but Zach Galifinakis, Andrea Riseborough, Naomi Watts, Amy Ryan and Lindsay Duncan are all magnificent as well.

 Grand Budapest Hotel : The cast of Grand Budapest Hotel is a vaunted and preeminent bunch. Ralph Fiennes, Edward Norton, F. Murray Abraham, Jude Law, Harvey Keitel, Saoirse Ronan, Tilda Swinton, Willem Dafoe and Matthew Amalric to name but a few. The acting in Grand Budapest Hotel is absolutely superb on all fronts.

And the winner is…PRIDE : This was a very tough one, but Pride just ekes out the victory over Birdman, with Grand Budapest Hotel, Inherent Vice and Mr. Turner all tied percentage points behind the winner. All of the nominees boasted absolutely stellar casts and performances. I couldn't go wrong with any choice I made, but I just thought Pride was the all-around best cast this year.

BREAK THROUGH PERFORMER OF THE YEAR

Rocco the Pitbull - The Drop : I liked The Drop. I thought it was a well made film. Tom Hardy does a very good job in it as does the late James Gandolfini. But the actor who steals the show is Rocco the Pitbull. Rocco grows from the most adorable puppy ever to the most adorable full grown pit bull ever in the course of the film. I love pit bulls, they are some of the greatest dogs I have ever known. It has been my experience that the worst pit bull I have ever met is still considerably better than the best person I have ever known. Rocco the Pitbull is easily the actor I'd want to spend my free time with. I hereby declare that Rocco is eligible for a free lifetime supply of acting coaching...or games of tug-of-war…his choice.

BEST DIRECTOR

The nominees are...

Damien Chazelle - Whiplash : In the hands of a lesser director, Whiplash would have been an absolute disaster. Chazelle, his first time directing a feature, creates a compelling and energetic film that pulsates with life. The difficulties of making a film about music cannot be overstated, but Chazelle proves himself to not only be a great talent, but a craftsman with a deft touch.

Wes Anderson - Grand Budapest Hotel : Grand Budapest Hotel is a sprawling film that is able to focus on very intricate details. Only a director of immense talent and skill could have pulled this film off. Wes Anderson has not always been so precise in his films in the recent past, but with Grand Budapest Hotel he shows once again that he is a grand artist with a truly original vision.

P.T. Anderson - Inherent Vice : PT Anderson is the greatest filmmaker working today. His artistry is not encumbered by the market or the box office. He is a visionary filmmaker and storyteller, but his greatest asset is his ability to conjure the absolute best from his actors. The combination of visual virtuosity, storytelling complexity and mastery, and artistic/dramatic collaboration is so very rare as to be nearly unheard of in one individual director. PT Anderson is at the height of his artistic powers, an unrivaled master, and we should all enjoy the ride while we can.

Lars von Trier - Nymphomaniac : Nymphomaniac is as ambitious and courageous an artistic undertaking as any film made this year. Only Lars von Trier could have made Nymphomaniac and only he could have made it not just interesting but meaningful. von Trier's work has always been somewhat controversial, but he is in my mind, the greatest writer and director when it comes to woman-centered stories and the exploration of the female perspective. Nymphomaniac is not for everyone, but for those with an inquisitive artistic mind and taste, it is a tour-de-force by a truly original filmmaker.

Dan Gilroy - Nightcrawler : Dan Gilroy has been a working writer in Hollywood for years, and Nightcrawler is his directorial debut. The film is a so visually striking and is such an interesting and well crafted film that it is astounding that this is Gilroy's first time behind the camera. 

Matthew Warchus - Pride : Pride very easily could have become a rather cloying, sentimental film that tries to manipulate rather than the film it was, exquisitely acted, beautifully told and wonderfully entertaining. Warchus is the reason the film never veered into the dreaded world of sentimentality. He also keeps a large and talented cast all moving in the same direction and at the same pace, no small task. 

Alejandro Gonzalez Innaratu - Birdman : Another ambitious film, with superb performances and a subtly impressive visual style. Innaratu can be hit or miss with his films, and he definitely hits with Birdman. The most important part of the film is the thing he got the most correct, the casting. Keaton, Norton and Stone are all perfect fits for roles that could easily have been bungled.

And the winner is…DAMIEN CHAZELLE - WHIPLASH : This was another loaded category, but Whiplash is such an impressively well made film, so tight and solid, without a wasted scene, moment or beat, that Chazelle earned The Mickey™®. The rest of the nominees did stupendous work as well, but Chazelle was the one who stood out from the rest of this remarkably talented crowd. 

BEST PICTURE

1. Whiplash : THE WINNER!!! Whiplash had it all…great performances, a compelling story and tight direction. It is a universal and mythological story of a young man's quest for greatness. Please see my full review here.  Whiplash .

2. Birdman : Birdman came so close to being a transcendently great film, but it bungles it's ending, which in many ways neutered the film. It still has truly fantastic performances across the board. See my full review here. Birdman .

3. Pride : Pride is a really enjoyable and entertaining film filled with superb performances. As my dear friend Lady Pumpernickle-Dusseldorf said after seeing it for the second time, "Pride may not be the best film of the year, but it is my favorite film of the year!"  Well said m'Lady, well said. See my full review here. Pride .

4. Inherent Vice : Inherent Vice is the most complex and layered film I've seen this year. It was both a joy to watch and to try figure out. P.T. Anderson weaves together a crazy story with a whole bunch of mesmerizing psychological and political themes that kept me thinking about it for weeks after seeing it. See my full review here. Inherent Vice .

5. Nightcrawler : I had zero expectations before seeing Nightcrawler. I hand't heard anything about it, and I admit that the commercials didn't entice me at all. But I was just blown away by how great a film it was. The story is captivating, the acting fantastic, the characters original and the visuals outstanding. I really loved Nightcrawler, I hope a lot more people get a chance to see it. Check out my full review here. Nightcrawler .

6. Grand Budapest Hotel : When Wes Anderson broke on the scene about twenty years ago with Bottle Rocket, one of my favorite films, I was all aboard the Wes Anderson train. He didn't disappoint me with his follow up films Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums. But then I thought he started to lose his fastball. In the films over the last few years I have been bored with his approach. 2012's Moonrise Kingdom was well received by others but not be me. I had grown tired of Anderson's film formula, which I boiled down to this, 'have children act like adults, and adults act like children'. So when I reluctantly went and saw Grand Budapest Hotel I had low expectations. But, boy, was I blown away. What an incredibly well made and interesting film. I was captivated the entire time I watched. The thing that stood out to me was this film had a much darker edge to it than Anderson had allowed in his more recent films. Yes, it is still a Wes Anderson film, and is chronically quirky, but this is like Schindler's List compared to Moonrise Kingdom. In the final analysis, I loved Grand Budapest Hotel and am really hoping that Wes Anderson has gotten his fastball back. 

7. Calvary : I loved Brendan Gleason's and Kelly Reilly's work in Calvary, and was really impressed by Larry Smith's cinematography. The film does struggle due to some uneven performances by it's supporting cast, but beside that I really enjoyed the film. I was particularly interested in the deeper themes with which the film attempted to wrestle. See my full review here. Calvary .

8. Mr. Turner : As I said in my review, Dick Pope's cinematography is worth the price of admission to go see this film. Timothy Spall's acting, along with the rest of the cast, is very good as well. The storytelling lacks a certain focus and the drama can be meandering at times, but regardless of that complaint, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. See my full review here. Mr. Turner .

9. Nymphomaniac : I realize that this film is not for everyone. I was admittedly pretty apprehensive about seeing Volume One. But as I watched it I was just blown away by it and then watched Volume Two. Lars von Trier creates a really unique and fascinating film. The scenes between Gainesbourg and Skarsgard are like something you'd see in a really great black box theatre production. The sex is pretty graphic, but is used to great effect, not to tittilate, but to explore the character and propel the story. I found the film to be really well made and with a few notable exceptions, well acted. 

10. Snowpiercer : Snowpiercer is just such an original story and film that you can't help but like it. It is more than just some sci-fi action movie. It is actually a really interesting social, political, philosophical and spiritual exploration that is enhanced by it's action and science fiction background. It is well worth your time.

MOST IMPORTANT FILM OF THE YEAR

Kill the Messenger : I had high hopes for Kill the Messenger prior to seeing it. I knew a decent amount about the film's protagonist, journalist Gary Webb, and his work uncovering CIA involvement in drug trafficking from Latin America into major U.S. cities. I had also read a bit about how the media establishment, at the behest of the CIA, went about diabolically and systematically destroying Gary Webb's career and in turn his life.

I enjoyed the film but only because I knew so much of the material already. I think the film was a failure though because it tried to do to many things and ended up not really accomplishing any of them. The film never explained to the uninitiated what exactly Webb uncovered, how massive the scheme was, and how incredibly important that information is, not only to people then, but to citizens today. I thought the film needed to use the same techniques that Oliver Stone used so effectively in JFK, namely the use of archival footage, real and imagined news footage and stories to show the broader, very vast picture in a more clear and concise way. 

That said, I thought Jeremy Renner did a really great job as Webb and the entire cast did excellent work. But none of those are the reasons why I think Kill the Messenger is the most important film of the year. Kill the Messenger is the most important film because it shows us what our government and its minions are capable of. If you stop to consider what the CIA was up to with its drug trafficking operation, and how the media was more than happy to be complicit in its cover up, and then you project forward to today and wonder what exactly is going on now and in the intervening years that we don't know about since we don't have a Gary Webb to uncover it. Kill the Messenger is important because it may open at least a few people's eyes as to the actual world we lived in then, and make them consider more closely the world we live in now.

At the end of Kill the Messenger, a short written message appears on the screen alerting the viewer that Gary Webb committed suicide a few years after the events described in the film. This is followed by another short written message telling viewers that Webb died of two gunshot wounds to the head. After the film ended, an older woman sitting alone in my aisle got up to leave and walked past me. I got up to give her room to walk out and she said to me unprovoked, "How DO you shoot yourself twice in the head?" Without really thinking about it I responded, "with a little help." Kill the Messenger may not have been a great, or even very good movie, but that hasn't stopped me from thinking a great deal about Gary Webb, his life, his work and his death, ever since I left that theatre. Gary Webb deserved better than he got from his colleagues in the media, his opponents in the government and from us, the people. 

"How DO you shoot yourself in twice in the head?" Most people don't know, don't want to know, or don't care about what Gary Webb uncovered. In addition, most people don't know, don't want to know, or don't care about what happened to Gary Webb. Maybe, just maybe, Kill the Messenger will open the eyes of some people, or maybe even just one person. As Gary Webb himself proved, even just one person can be enough to find and spread the truth. "With a little help", Gary Webb's work will not vanish into the memory hole, no matter how hard the government, media and establishment, which his work indicts, try to make it disappear. 

How DO you shoot yourself twice in the head? With a little help. With a little help...indeed.

Thus concludes the first annual Mickey™® awards!! Congratulations to the winners and all the nominees!! And to my gentle readers I say...thank you for indulging me…and see you next year at The Mickeys™®…Now onto the after party at Fatburger!!!

TO CHECK OUT THE DARK SHADOW OF THE MICKEY™® AWARDS…CLICK HERE TO SEE  ALL THE LOSERS AT THE SLIP-ME-A-MICKEY™® AWARDS.

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 Ryan, The 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 Whisperer, BEFORE 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.