Film Review: "The Ides of March"

"The Ides of March" is a solid, effective political thriller.  It accomplishes the rare feat of guiding viewers through the tedious labyrinth of American politics by entertaining us with a suspense-filled story. 

The plot is almost too plausible to be far-fetched.  It might not say anything new about corruption, betrayal, backstabbing and one-upmanship that form the sorry state of American presidential elections; but it does stand out as a fine example of the highest levels of skill and polish that American movies have to offer.  "The Ides of March" is a sophisticated potboiler.

Ryan Gosling is the super-idealistic media manager for a Democratic Presidential candidate (George Clooney), who is in a tight race in the Ohio primary against an adversary that is known for playing dirty politics.  Gosling's character is a sincere and skillful player, an impressive spinner, who impresses Clooney with his knowledge of public opinion and how to manipulate it.  That is, until he gets involved with a pretty young intern (Evan Rachel Wood) with close family ties to the Democratic party. This eventually leads to his discovery that his hero Clooney is embroiled in a potentially career-ending scandal.

How he reacts to this discoraging development, and learns to survive by beating everyone at their viscious game, makes for a highly watchable if cynical piece of filmmaking.

The heart of the film is Gosling's character's slow movement into disillusionment.  It can be seen as the loss of innocence of a whole electorate; but I think the film wisely eschewed such ambitions. It's a good look at a particular character.

Philip Seymour Hoffman is the campaign's chief of staff, a seasoned and cynical politico, who knows  how to play dirty, but still holds to some notion of loyalty. Paul Giamatti (less annoying than usual but still hammy) is the manager of the rival campaign, a snake-in-the-grass among snakes, who makes a phone call that sets Gosling's desperate descent into motion. Marisa Tomei is an political insider, a reporter for the New York Times who cheerfully exploits everyone.  Jeffrey Wright (playing beneath his talents) is a senator whose hotly-sought endorsement is the catalyst for all kinds of double-dealing on all sides.



Gosling can carry a film, and is showing an interesting range.  This is the fourth film I have seen him in this year (I like to think that it's due to Gosling's good taste in selecting properties, ones that interest me!) along with "Blue Valentine", "Crazy Stupid Love", and "Drive".  He reminds me of the high-school jock who shocks everyone by how good he is in the drama club.  He commands the scenes he is in, and has a slow, deliberate manner of speech, like Brando with good diction.  It hope he continues to appear in mature roles in serious fare.


Clooney's is more of a supporting role. It was clever to cast himself as a Democratic candidate (a foreshadowing?) whose ideas are on the money for today's voters, practical and easy to support, while his character is ensnared in a morally indefensible dilemma.  Had this character been portrayed as  Republican, the film would have received the knee-jerk scorn of Fox-News types and those who are threatened by National Public Radio as being too partisan.

All other cast members performed well in one of the year's best ensembles.  Funny, but at times this movie seemed to be a stop-off for cast members on their way to do other films: Gosling and Tomei both in "Crazy Stupid Love", Hoffman in "Moneyball", Clooney in "The Descendants",  Giamatti in "Win-Win", Wood in "True Blood."  Perhaps this film was a labor of love, a film they all believed in.  If so, I applaud the involvement of each of them.

I was absorbed by the well-written and fast-paced film (screenplay by Clooney, Grant Heslov, and Beau Willimon based on his play "Farragut North").  During the intense climactic confrontation between Gosling and Clooney, shot in shadowy closeup, it hit me how nicely directed this movie is even though at that moment I had forgotten who directed this film.  It is, of course, Clooney's picture, a worthy follow-up to another compelling political drama, "Good Night and Good Luck".  Clooney is blessed with a strong technical crew; the look of the film, the design and lighting, are top-notch; and the film is edited down to the exact frame, moves quickly and goes down smoothly.

The plot turns on an accidental discovery found on a character's i-phone text.  Was this part of the original play? Maybe because this was the second consecutive film I saw where this plot device was used ("Like Crazy" was the other one), that I regarded this as a new, already tired cliche, one that should be banned from Hollywood films from now on.

I cannot imagine how this film plays to viewers from outside the U.S.  The machinations, the blackmail that are all a part of "politics", must seem insane, and counter-intuitive to the governance of this country.  If Clooney stays in Hollywood instead of Washington, he may do all of us a public service by continuing to create high-quality, well, played motion pictures like "The Ides of March" that raise audiences' awareness of the madness of our political system, and even move them to positive action.

Movie Review: "Drive"

The best thing that director Nicolas Winding Refn has going for his romance-noir-thriller "Drive" is Ryan Gosling.  Gosling creates a strong presence in a role of a mechanic-cum-movie-stunt-and-getaway-car-driver, a role so barley written that the character has no name.  Filmed almost entirely in pore-enlarging closeup, Gosling holds the camera so well, and communicates so much with the flick of a toothpick, the clench of a jaw or the movement of his eye, that he lends the role an almost undeserved mythic heroism.

Refn makes up for a plot-intensive but minimalist screenplay with an abundance of style.  This is a movie that is spellbinding to the eye and ear.  Refn knows how to move the camera, and to frame his actors.  He even has the sensitivity to craft an effective love story.  Carey Mulligan, as Driver's neighbor, the mother of a young son whose father has just been released from prison, is an effective symbol of soft innocence who touches Driver's heart and moves him to save her from gangsters in a plan that goes terribly awry.  The chemistry between the two is tender and believable. There is hope that somehow this couple and the little boy find a way to escape and wind up together, until she witnesses an act of violence that betrays the ticking time bomb inside this strong and mysteriously handsome enigma.

"Dive" would succeed as a dreamy visual and aural exercise, if not for the tired intrusion of this underworld crime "plot", which provides a context for moments of sudden and very bloody violence.  (All the more likely to market this film successfully to overseas audiences.)  Violence this intense should serve a more significant piece of work that is worthy of it. I can't imagine many films that would recover from such scenes as a woman's head exploding from gunfire, a fork being plunged into an eyeball, a man's head being stomped to a pulp, or a character's arm slashed with a straight razor until he bleeds to death.  "Drive" is no exception; here it is so extreme it becomes almost cartoonish, and given its trappings, I don't believe this is what Refn intended for this film. 

Which is a shame really, because much of "Drive" can carry the viewer away with some eloquent photography and effective cutting, attractive characters beautifully, quietly observed, all of it set to a pulsating and often  lovely contemporary soundtrack .  Just as a simple character study, it is often exciting, and suspenseful.  In spite of the overdone crime-drama elements, we long to know more about these characters, who obviously care for each other, and make us care too.

The influences from other movies seep through this canvas like the neon color scheme Refn used to design this film.  There's the "Blue Velvet" mother and her young son, both in peril from the underworld; the "Taxi Driver" stoicism of the central character whose primal savageness is unleashed; and the Kubrickian bit of nasty ultra-violence perpetrated in front of a roomful of expressionless topless dancers that echoes with images of the Korova Milk Bar.  And if you wonder what Gosling's mention of the Scorpion and the Frog means, watch "The Crying Game". 

Gosling maintains his well-groomed sexiness, while his stylish Scorpion jacket gets more gruesome with carnage like a modern day Dorian Gray; yet his humanity comes through as he recovers from a heart-stopping final confrontation that helps take this above the "Terminator"- level to which the screenplay finally descends. More than once during "Drive's" overlong 100-minute running time, I felt as though I were looking at a graphic novel instead of a film.

In supporting roles, Bryan Cranston ("Breaking Bad") is fine as Driver's boss and old friend who gets tragically involved with a criminal element.  Albert Brooks (have I seen him in anything since 1987's  "Broadcast News"?) looks horrible as a smarmy crime boss with a vicious streak of his own.  And Ron Perlman is just plain ugly in a role that I could barely watch.

The opening car chase sequence raises one's hopes that here will be an intelligent exercise in cinematic movement and suspense.  There are dozens of small scenes and moments that, taken on their own, indicate a filmmaker of substance and savvy resourcefulness.

I would normally, enthusiastically endorse the beauty of Refn's craftsmanship and the haunting visual experience that is a result;  but I can't ultimately recommend "Drive", unfortunately, as anything more than a Big Mac with extra meat, a little more special sauce, and a gorgeously ornate box to serve it in.

"Blue Valentine": A Film Review

Prologue: There is one beautiful shot in "Blue Valentine" in which a bus, carrying the two protagonists, is seen in long-shot driving down a city street.  At the beginning of the shot, a half of a rainbow is seen in the upper left corner of the frame.  As the shot ends, the other half of the rainbow is seen in the upper right corner.  It appeared to be a raw shot, without CGI or any other special effect.

It would be impossible to write this into the script, without assuming that a process shot would be needed.  
And its inclusion in the film would be almost too coincidental if it were an accident.
I wondered if someone just happened to capture a shot of a bus and a rainbow, and then built a whole film around it.  (Such are the things that intrigue me about the creative process.)
~    ~    ~    ~    ~    ~  

It is a credit to the film "Blue Valentine" that its stars, Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams, are so good.  There is little else besides them in the movie, as they nakedly inhabit two complex and troubled individuals.  I don't think there is any point in which either of them do not appear, and most of the time they are examined closely, in various stages of emotional dissolution.


While "Blue Valentine" is often difficult to watch, a viewer comes away reflective, somber, but thankfully, not devastated.  This is not a movie for the ages, but an effective contemporary telling of a universal story of lost intimacy.  It is probably a classic of some kind,  creating new  rules for the cinematic treatment of a troubled marriage. 


"Blue Valentine" takes a look at why one marriage disintegrated,  juxtaposing its final, painful moments with scenes of tenderness and support at the relationship's beginning.  As it progresses we slowly learn about the couple's fragile arrangement, and find clues about what would eventually destroy them.  The things they initially found charming about one another become repulsive to them by the end.  Missteps in communication (as the marriage is ending) begin to make sense as the details of early crises (later in the film) bring the relationship into focus.


Ryan Gosling's character, Dean, is an aimless, goofy, deceptively simple sort of guy, who lacks ambition, instead finding satisfaction, to his surprise, as a husband and a father. Williams' character, Cindy, is riddled with baggage and hurt: raised in a home with an emotionally abusive father and ineffective mother, she is intelligent enough to finish medical training, but finds her plans almost derailed by the affections of a handsome but coarse and violent lover.


An early sequence, in which the family dog has run away, and the couple's young daughter stands alone in a field calling the dog's name, has an undercurrent of resignation and resentment.  William's in particular shows enormous skill in her reaction to the dog's fate, trying to balance her regret and sadness with acceptance of Gosling's angry outburst at her. For a while, the film is unclear about what brought these seemingly impossibly-matched people together in the first place.


Soon, these questions are answered by flashing back (and changing the grain of the film, and the lighting and color schemes) to the more plot-driven early sequences.


In Dean, Cindy finds an escape from her oppressive home life and brutally carnal ex-boyfriend.  She is drawn to Dean's gentleness and his non-judgmental regard for her.  She also finds a possible father for her child.  Dean is charming, and admires Cindy's beauty and ambition, and is himself charmed by her appreciation of his quirkiness, his humor.  She also accepts his spontaneity and doesn't judge him. The film also suggests her acceptance of his seeming impotence.


The film cuts between the beginning and the end of the relationship, eliminating anything in the middle that may explain their changes of character along the way.  The movie asks us to believe that there were no turning points in their marriage, but merely that old resentments and  annoyances slowly festered into major explosions of frustration.  Given how the characters have been shaped and portrayed, I think this works.


As we learn more, Cindy's motivations seem less clear, and we begin to sympathize more with Dean. In fact, the viewer is likely to form a love/hate relationship with both of the characters. Each clearly made sacrifices, and bad decisions along the way, yet we hope that they can find common ground.  (It just feels like Dean made the bigger sacrifice and Cindy's rejection appears ungrateful.)


Dean, in a last-ditch attempt to salvage their relationship, reserves a room in a cheesy sex-themed hotel, choosing the "Future Room", which (from what we can tell) looks like a 1950's sci-fi movie set, bathed in blue light, but with a rotating bed.  The scene provides a microcosm of their entire marriage: playful at times, sentimental, then the old habits kick in, he doesn't listen to her and twists her words, she is impatient and wants him to "do something" (career-wise? sexually?). She finally locks him in the bathroom to sleep on the floor while she leaves for work.

 
 I wish the film breathed a little here, and SHOWED us the entire room.. I guess, giving the benefit of the doubt, the relentless closeups effectively represent the characters' own sense of claustrophobia and entrapment and inability to see the world around them...especially the "future". 

Actually, the symbols in the film fall with a light thud.  Why does Dean sport a t-shirt with an  American Eagle on it? And why does the film end on the 4th of July?  Something, perhaps, about the pain involved in gaining independence?  No political interpretation seems to work, and would be inappropriate here anyway.  More effective is the parallel between the missing dog and Dean's departure: the sadness of both situations has come full-circle.

I am mystified by critics who felt Gosling's performance is as slack as his character.  Actually, I think both actors have done some of their best work here. Gosling's slow recovery after being bested in a fight, as he crawls to a ringing telephone, is breathtaking.  His soon-to-be classic number with a ukulele makes a potentially trite scene very warm and memorable.  The physical transformation of his character (look at his hairline in the "later" scenes) is as effective as Gosling's muddled fast-talk and his insecure, middle-aged desperation.  He is terrific.


Williams has matured since "Brokeback Mountain", and is believable, first as a young student, and later, an impatient, weary spouse.  Her self-ministrations after painful sex, her overwhelming emotional decision in an abortion clinic, and her outpouring of pent-up frustration during a climactic shouting match, show her amazing range while remaining within the parameters of her character.


In its ultimately sad and cathartic message about love and loss, I was reminded of George and Martha's emotional brutality in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf".  What prevents this from being a modern-day "Virginia Woolf" is a slackness in the writing. Albee's language was precise and profane, and every line, every word, carried weight.  Here, the actors have been given more freedom to improvise, and some of the scenes go on well after the point has been made.  Dean and Cindy will endure as modern flawed heroes, but will never achieve mythic status.


Whereas "Virginia Woolf" was verbally shocking, "Blue Valentine" is street-wise and physical in ways "Woolf" would never have dared to be.  The MPAA originally gave "Blue Valentine" the extreme NC-17 rating (adults only) for a couple of love scenes similar to those found in other films rated R ("Monster's Ball" and "Black Swan" come to mind). The rating was silly, but the prolonged scenes probably scandalized the ratings board, because of the genuine expression of pleasure portrayed in one sequence.  While no genitals were exposed, there was no doubt about what was going on.  Kids who make it to this point in the film without losing interest probably would not be traumatized, like they might be in any number of torture-porn films released with an R (available for children if an adult accompanies them).


"Blue Valentine" is a really good film, a difficult film but a rewarding one, because of the commitment and skill of its two leads.  Based on this picture, I am interested to view new work by director Derek Cianfrance. I believe this is his first feature, having done a number of documentaries and short films, and studied avant-garde filmmaking under the likes of Stan Brakhage.  (Funny how much Gosling's character resembles Cianfrance!)