Monday, December 21, 2009

Movies: "Precious"

Yesterday I reviewed "Brothers", an admirable work of surprising power.  Today, I share my views on "Precious', a movie that has received more attention than "Brothers", and which I had avoided, certain that the film itself could not live up to the emotional promise of its trailer.  Well, I am glad to say that "Precious" delivered a stunning emotional punch....it is a true vision of hell, one that exists maybe no further away than the closest big city.




Precious Clarice Jones is overweight, inarticulate, angry, and afraid, raped by her father (resulting in two pregnancies), and trapped in a home with a dangerously controlling and irrational mother.  This is a story of Precious' escape from despair through education, her courage to leave an oppressive homelife, and her journey into a world that keeps handing her one heartbreak after another.  Here is an individual who needs to reinvent herself in the most fundamental of ways, merely to survive.  The sad irony is that, by the end, it is implied that her effort may not have been enough.


The iconic film image of the year maybe the face of actress Gabourey Sidibe as Precious, in close profile, the rolls of flesh effectively covering her anguish.  This movie is a look into a world many of us turn away from, and while I admired the film rather than wholly embraced it, I am glad I took the chance; I was rewarded with a riveting emotional connection with a character I will never forget.  Director Lee Daniels elicits great work from all involved, especially from Sidibe; and also from Mo'Nique, who is nothing less than a revelation as the monster mother, who relieves her own deep feelings of inadequacy and loneliness by belittling and hurting her daughter. 


I was especially astounded by Mo'Nique's final scene in her confrontation with a social worker (wonderful work as well by Mariah Carey).  In a cunningly well-written monolog, she reveals layers of desperation and rage, morphing instantly from jealousy, to neediness, once pleading, then hateful, and actually succeeds in wringing some sympathy for her character.  She just might join the Oscar ranks of Shelly Winters' abusive-mother role in "A Patch of Blue". 


At one point in the film, a teacher uses the word "unrelenting".  That word perfectly describes the oppressive life Precious Jones must endure: Taunted on her way home from an unispiring public school; confined to a bleak ghetto apartment, the curtains perpetually drawn to keep out the light; a world of mindless TV and cooking and eating and insensitivity; of beatings and sexual abuse;  pregnant at 16-and already raising a child with Down's syndrome,  it is a world of no hope, with seemingly nowhere to go.




"Oppressive" is a word I keep coming back to when I think of the overall atmosphere.  Scenes within the apartment between Precious and her dangerously angry mother had me as anxious and apprehensive as scenes in Buffalo Bill's depraved cellar in "Silence of the Lambs".  (Later I dismissed the possibility that this was just a subliminal reaction to her name..."Precious" and  "Clarice" were also names used in "Lambs".)  The camerawork is tight, and the lighting and color render the setting as unattractive as a refuse heap.  Precious "escapes" the dreariness and emotional horror through "fantasies" inspired by images from her limited exposure to pop culture.  She imagines herself a glamorous star, or a model, or a member of a church choir.  My favorite of these is a funny and telling satire of DeSica's "Two Women", which Precious sees on television.  The sequence is filmed in black-and-white, and is spoken in Italian with English subtitles.  It is funny, but also poignant in that Precious' fantasies of a loving mother involve a kind-faced woman who still uses foul language and who still orders her to keep eating.

I enjoyed these eloquent stylistic touches, and the use of montage to create new meanings, as well as to lighten up this bleak portrait.  I was reminded of the ferment and experimentation of films of the '70's, when this kind of creativity was encouraged.

The title character is not always a passive victim.  Unable to speak whole sentences or project her voice from her large frame, she nevertheless has a surprising ability to protect herself, resorting to unexpected outbursts of violence, the only way she has learned to resolve differences. 

The film is completely absorbing once Precious is admitted to an alternative school, mentored by a no-nonsense teacher who demands that each girl in her class write each day.  We have come a long way from the "ghetto school" Sidney Poitier supervised in "To Sir With Love".  I did wonder why the film necessarily was set in 1987; maybe a modern story would be so beset with cell phones and texting that the plot would be stranded at the gate...or maybe because the AIDS virus, which provides a horribly moving plot twist, was new enough--and lethal enough--for viewers to draw their own conclusions about a resolution to the story that the movie leaves ambiguous.

Daniels might have encouraged Sibide to enunciate better while retaining the flavor of her inarticulate street-language vernacular.  She is often terribly difficult to understand, and this character needs to be heard clearly.  Also, I am weary of directors' current fascination with throw-up scenes....and if you're sensitive be warned.  It is almost never necessary to be explicit.  Suggestion is usually sufficient, and was all that was needed.

Those criticisms aside, I must finally describe my favorite sequence, a breathtaking show of emotion by Precious in the classroom.  After all she has been through, thinking she has finally escaped, she gets another life-altering bit of bad news, and is unable to cope and cannot work. She finally breaks down, completely vulnerable, and unburdens her emotions, convinced that she cannot be loved, that love has done nothing but hurt her.  Her teacher, caring yet firm, gives her a one-word bit of advice:  "Write", she says to Precious. 

I wept during that sequence, a scene which, to me, was worth the entire experience. 


Sunday, December 20, 2009

Movies: "Brothers"



This weekend I attended two films notable for their intensity. Both “Brothers” and “Precious” tell moving, highly charged personal stories of characters coping with brutal circumstances. Both films are honest and unflinchingly emotional, although they are as unlike each other stylistically as they could be….as if they existed in completely different mediums. They are each, in their own way, about wars fought on world battlefields as well as domestic ones. Both tell tales of characters surviving, and, yes, reinventing themselves. Today I will review….


Brothers


“Brothers”, Jim Sheridan’s drama of a family coping with the return of one brother from prison and another from Afghanistan, is a chamber piece whose tight focus on the intimate anguish of a small number of characters is worthy of a piece by Bergman. I admired the closely observed details of a typical suburban family, their effort to make a good life, and their sincere attempts to heal the wounds they inflict on each other.


Small details in the design are captured with amazingly authentic lighting by David Lynch-lenser Frederick Elmes (who specializes in a certain creepy, unbalanced framing of benign, everyday American settings). The furniture, popular artifacts, fabrics on the beds, posters on the walls, casually observed kitsch at the edges of the frame, the entertainment centers, the variety of glassware in a kitchen cabinet; even the patched-up cracks in the pavement down Main Street, are perfect. Early on, I settled comfortably, happily, into this world, and began to love these people, flaws and all.


My comfort was short-lived, as the film builds to an intensity bordering on melodrama.


Toby McGuire is a career Marine ready for another deployment to Afghanistan. On the eve of his departure, his brother, Jake Gyllenhaal, is released from prison for an unspecified crime of violence against a woman who still lives in town. Natalie Portman is just right as McGuire’s wife, whose kindness to Gyllenhall sets him on his road to redemption, and kindles a chaste romance. The story builds quietly and then pulls us into a vortex of family violence and pain.  I was shaken by this film.

All of the performances are first-rate. I found it difficult in the first half hour to accept Gyllenhaal as a convict-- he has such a hang-dog romantic visage and a nice-guy aura, regardless of a rather attractive beard---- but he settles into the character and shows the most significant change.


Sam Shepherd has never been better in the role of the stubborn father who pits one brother against the other. He manages the difficult task of making this character sympathetic. The two little girls playing the daughters of McGuire and Portman met the demands of their roles with aplomb; the young actress playing the older sister can cry on a dime….and will likely be tapped for more emotional parts as she grows up.


McGuire is unforgettable as a haunted man (only once, in a scene in a car, did I feel it was laid on too thick) composing himself with a stillness and menacing stare worthy of the trauma that has befallen him. After a series of tragic events, McGuire returns home unexpectedly, and in a sequence that recalls Hal Ashby’s “Coming Home”, all three must adjust, pull together, and help each other.


The war in Afghanistan forms the horrific centerpiece to the film, a scene of such power I objected at first to its inclusion; but came to understand it better, as we witness the anguished McGuire, a victim of his obsessions, unable to verbalize, and thus heal, the tragedy of his participation in the death of one “brother’ in wartime, as he symbolically “kills” another brother by destroying the hard work that pulled Gyllenhaal back to respectability.


The Afghan war in this film is completely apolitical….the concern here is not with the futility of a particular war, but all war, if it destroys the spirits of those who “survive”. The film is, finally, concerned with the rhythms of the everyday, and how sincere and loving people need to come together to manage a horrific world. Sheridan is still riding on my good will from “My Left Foot”. As he demonstrated then, directing Daniel Day Lewis’ anguished, head-banging slow burn, Sheridan is a master of the slow lead-up to an explosion of anger and conflict. He also showed marvelous restraint here in the Afghan scenes, where from a director of less taste and sensitivity the sequence would have been hugely objectionable. I admired his decision to keep the Afghan backgrounds crisp and in true color, rather than the bleached-out exposure many directors use in Middle-Eastern War films.  Like in "The Killing Fields", the horror is more heartbreaking in a surrounding of such rugged beauty.


If anything, the film ended too soon, failing to fully develop the intriguing themes it sets up, especially the ways the three leads must reinvent themselves to survive: Gyllenhall’s need for recognition, which, when received, helps him grow; McGuire’s “lack of quit” , that might have saved him, or else might have been his (if not our military’s) undoing; and Portman's resolution of her love for two very different men.  McGuire’s and Gyllenhall’s characters are actually apart for the majority of the film. I might have written a final scene between them, instead of the phone call. At any rate, I can see how McGuire’s small triumphs in communicating his feelings may set him back on a right course. The relationships go unresolved, however, and the finale raises questions rather than answers them….just like in the everyday lives these characters portray.


Tomorrow: Precious

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Movies in Wintertime, Part 2---The Awards Whirlpool!





The Golden Globe Award nominees have been announced...and soon, Tuesday, February 2, we will know which 10 films will be competing for the Best Picture Academy Award!  The  Golden Globe Awards will be revealed on January 17, and you can see all of the nominees by clicking on the above link.


In an upcoming post, I will describe my own lifelong love affair with movie awards, and my recent disillusionment with Oscar, and subsequent inching back into the fold.

For now, let me say that I find the history of the Academy Awards, its trivia, its winners list, and especially the nominees across the decades, as fun as I ever did.  And I have become a pretty good repository of these bits of film culture.

The recent glut of of movie awards is as numbing as a steady diet of junk food.  Especially now when there are SO MANY awards handed out at year's end.  There have always been a lot of year-end film awards, but they are more highly publicized today.  (The Golden Globe ceremony, for instance, at one time was a more private industry affair broadcast on syndicated channels late at night...now, it's a prime-time event.)

Does anyone else think that the sheer number of honors sort of dilutes them?  Consider, besides Oscars and Golden Globes:   the New York Film Critics, LA Film Critics, National Board of Review, National Society of Film Critics, Broadcast Film Critics, Critics Choice, People's Choice,  Independent Spirit, Screen Actors Guild, and numerous other city and regional film boards and critics circles.  Results of all these are increasingly used by everyone from professional prognosticators to amateur stargazers to handicap the ultimate prize, The Oscar.

("Let's see, it didn't win the SAG Ensemble Award, but it did win Director's guild....but the other film swept the critics awards, but did not snag an Editing nomination...etc...").  I began predicting winners as a youngster, entering the Gene Siskel Chicago Tribune Annual "Beat Siskel" Contest.  I never won, but I did frequently beat Siskel (outguessed his predictions, that is) but always lost the tie-breaking draw.

By the time the Academy Awards are broadcast now, the odds are stacked in favor of the same few films that picked up many other honors, so that the resulting lack of suspense drains the event of some of the fun.....
....unless it just so happens that your own, personal favorite film of the year, (maybe of your entire life), is poised to score big, then you hold your breath and squeeze your eyes, just knowing you will be vindicated when the title is inevitably called out, ....or risk  crushing disappointment if it loses (again, my personal story in that upcoming post!)

It's a double-edged sword.  A lot of awards have already been announced, and many worthy films have not yet been in general release. 

This has the potential to play in two ways:  first, awards have value in that they help direct people to new movies they might otherwise have ignored...it brings great work to the attention of an attention-challenged public. 

The flip side is this:  there is now an unfortunate tendency for people to view movies in terms of their possible award chances, or to scrutinize the films' or performers' worthiness for nominations, or their lack thereof.   Many will avoid some wonderful movies that didn't score well in nominaitons or wins. Of course, that's why awards have always been so good for the movie business--they just aren't always good for the art of film-making.  Moviegoers stop going to movies  primarily for personal enlightenment,  or to explore something new on their own, or just because they are drawn to a subject, but will attend simply to feel a part of the awards bandwagon, which is often more like an awards whirlpool.

I have seen too many movies I really disliked, because their nominations...or wins....made them seem more worthy of attention.  I didn't trust my own artistic criteria to make my own judgment regardless of the honors, because I was unwilling to believe that the awards might have nothing to do with real artistic merit! I even told myself I actually kind of liked these movies, so that I wouldn't have that left-out feeling if they won lots of awards on Oscar night. 

So I entreat movie lovers everywhere to enjoy the awards hoopla, but to give pictures their due, on their own merits, and trust your judgments....the Academy (and other groups) sometimes gets it wrong. There are some nice pictures struggling to be seen, that don't have the budget or studio backing to compete in awards contests.   A great film that you happen to like should STILL be a great film and worthy of your admiration...EVEN IF IT WINS NOT ONE AWARD.

Of course, when prizes like Oscar DO get it right....once in a while it is a happy coincidence...you almost feel as though you could give your own acceptance speech...and you keep coming back, year after lackluster year, for the next time the Best Film really is...the best.

Having said all that, on the night of the Golden Globe Awards:  The enthusiastic boy that still resides within me will be happy if I hear Meryl Streep's name called out in triumph! And I will try to attend "Up In The Air" because of the award hype, and "Avatar" too..and I hope they prove worthy of their praise...I will review "Brothers" and maybe "Precious", and assess their chances, this weekend...but, award wins or no, I will certainly be right there for "Nine" and "Single Man"!


Short Takes: Copenhagen, Health Care, and Afghanistan--Friday Journal

In the days ahead, look for more about Holiday Films, Reviews, and the Awards Derbies...Also: Favorite Books of the Year...nostalgic, humorous sketches on old relatives and animals missed this time of year (gone but not forgotten)....and one way Mark and I are reinventing ourselves, at the Wellness Center (a topic, for all of the time it occupies, I have never written about!)

~ ~ ~ ~



First, as I look out on the light and steady snow, COP15, the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, is coming to a close.  To some of us old-movie lovers, "Wonderful Copenhagen" is still a tune sung by Danny Kaye in a Hollywood musical about Hans Christian Andersen, writer of fairy tales.  Unfortunately, many folks still regard the science of climate change as just a fairy tale.  Our media do not cover this issue nearly enough.  I wish the Conference were covered on major networks 24/7; and that there had been an Opening Ceremonies...a Halftime Show...a Red Carpet....in other words, I wish Science were accorded the same hoopla, and attention, as our distractions.

I fear that compromise, and halfhearted "victory", may once again be the order of the day....  But there are lots of meetings to come next year, by scientists and technologists.... this issue is ready to meet progress...

Has this conference begun to produce the desired outcomes?  There have been lofty speeches, given  between tedious discussions about procedures, and drafts of agreements, and just what is being agreed upon.  Disagreements over a "global agreement" or a "political agreement", or whether a document will be produced to further the work begun with the Kyoto Protocol (due to "expire" by 2012) had put the results of the talks in question. 

The latest news appears to be that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton dramatically interrupted a "secret negotiation" by Chinese, Indian, and Brazilian leaders, and that an agreement was eventually reached, but one that was seriously compromised, with no goal for a binding international treaty by 2010 as hoped,  and no real targets for greenhoue gas-emisson controls by industrialized countries.  Developing countries were upset that they were "left out" of the negotiations, and European nations were unhappy because they alone have the world's binding carbon-control policies in place

The upside is that the issue has gained an international profile, and "the accord provides a system for monitoring and reporting progress toward those national pollution-reduction goals, a compromise on an issue over which China bargained hard... calls for hundreds of billions of dollars to flow from wealthy nations to ... countries most vulnerable to a changing climate. And it sets a goal of limiting the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius..." ( or arounf 3 degrees F., a number that African countries believe is still disastrously high)   (NY Times)  

(I wonder how many scientists attended, if any...still researching...)


For a quick glimpse into the conference and its main issues, check out this article in the Arizona Daily Sun.  In it, journalists David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin from the Washington Post, offer a readable summary about the purpose of the conference, what the protesters were protesting, what the main  issues were, and the debate over the science of rising temperatures.


An interesting parallel story is that of James Hansen, NASA's leading climate scientist who has studied this for 30-odd years, and who himself has been arested in non-violent protests against environmental issues.  Hansen was positioning himself to become the "Howard Dean" of the Copenhagen talks, by stating:  "....any agreement that may emerge from the talks that are being held in the Danish capital ......is likely to be so "fundamentally wrong" that it would be better if those seeking to address the problem of climate change and/or global warming took a year out to "figure out a better path".  (Dean made a similar threat to stall health-care discussions in favor of a better plan).

NPR recently interviewed writer and scientist Mark Bowen, whose book, "Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global  Warming",  describes Hansen's going public with the Bush Administration's cover-up of global warming sceintific evidence.  Hansen does not believe most of the world leaders, including our own, truly understand the problem. 


~ ~ ~ ~
Health-care reform is still in the haggling stage.  If ever there was an argument for living a healthy life and preventing or reducing illness, the frightening process we've witnessed in the Capitol to extend insurance coverage to all Americans, and ensure coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, might just be it.

A blogging friend, Torq,  is passionate about this issue.  He and I fundamentally agree on the importance of passing a bill, although we disagree on how compromised the bill ought to be....(I think less so than my friend)...and who is to blame if a bill is not passed..(he would blame liberals for stalling the process now, I would implicate those who have fought irrationally for its demise the whole time, and used untruths to stir up fears and appeal to the weak or the ignorant.)


Here's from my comment to a recent post on his journal page...


"If the new bill really does provide the access it says it does, at an affordable cost, then I am for that.
Given the way the bill has evolved, and the compromises I'm hearing now, I don't trust that this will be the case if the bill is passed, not in any significant way.
I am losing confidence in the possible outcomes, because many in Congress are so well supported by the health and pharmaceutical industries, that there would seem to be little incentive to effect real competition to keep premiums down.
As I understand it, people will be mandated to buy insurance (a boon to private insurance providers), or be fined...with few choices for affordable care....I just don't see how it represents meaningful change....
I want to remain optimistic... my instincts tell me to fight a little more...so that we don't allow millions more into a broken system...."

~ ~ ~ ~

Afghanistan---is still on my mind....but not so much in the news these past few days... 
I have thought a lot about last Sunday's "60 Minutes" interview, with Mr. Obama talking to Steve Kroft about, among other things, the soon-to-be-increased  troop levels in Afghanistan.  
(click here for a transcript).
Mr. Obama seemed more confrontive than I had ever seen him, holding Kroft in an unblinking gaze like a double-dare.  Mr. Obama gave indirect answers, speaking instead about benchmarks for success and the best interests of American security, without elaboration.  When Kroft asked him how the goals would be accomplished in a "country" that is a collection of tribes under a corrupt leadership, the response from our President was, chuckling, "This is hard".

Again, I want to support an honest effort.  Yet I have been learning about how we got there in the first place. I found a very interesting article in a blog called RealityZone, and I am questioning my assumptions and attitudes.  I read this article just hours before I heard the 60 Minutes interview, with passages like the one below.    Re-Invention, in my case, means continuing to read critically..to check sources....to open my eyes....

The following was published in Counter Punch, written by By Richard W. Behan, 9/9/09.

"It is a war....undertaken for the geopolitical control of the immense hydrocarbon resources of the Caspian Basin: Afghanistan, lying directly between those resources and the world’s richest markets, uniquely offers pipeline routes of incalculable value.
By 1996 the Bridas Corporation of Argentina had a lock on the routes. With signed pipeline contracts from both General Dostum of the Northern Alliance and the Taliban, Bridas controlled the Caspian play.
To the Unocal Corporation of the U.S. (and subsequently to the Bush Administration) that was intolerable. To contest Bridas’ success, Unocal hired a number of consultants: Henry Kissinger, Hamid Karzai, Richard Armitage, and Zalmay Khalilzad. Armitage would later serve George W. Bush as Deputy Secretary of State, and Khalilzad would become a prominent diplomat. Both were enthusiastic members of the “PNAC,” the Project for a New American Century, a far-right group......" 


..."In the late ‘90’s Unocal hosted Taliban leaders at its headquarters in Texas and in Washington D.C., seeking to have the Bridas contract voided. The Taliban refused. Finally, on February 12, 1998, Mr. John J. Maresca, a Vice President of Unocal, testified to the House Committee on International Relations. He asked to have the Taliban removed from power in Afghanistan, and for a “stable government” to be installed in its place...."



"...The Clinton Administration, having rejected a month earlier the PNAC request to invade Iraq, was not any more interested in overthrowing the Taliban: President Clinton understood and chose to abide by the United Nations Charter. In August of 1998, however, Clinton launched a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan, retaliating for al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. And he signed an Executive Order prohibiting further trade negotiations with the Taliban...."


"...Frantic to avoid the retaliatory bombing, the Taliban offered the surrender of Osama bin Laden.
As the details of the handover were being worked out, however, the stalemated election of 2000 was awarded to George W. Bush. The surrender of Osama bin Laden would be handled by the incoming Administration.


"...But the new Administration demurred. In letter to the Taliban the Bush White House asked to postpone the handover of bin Laden until February; the Administration was still “settling in.” Kabir Mohabbat, however, was retained as a consultant to the National Security Council.


Unocal's fortunes then improved dramatically. In direct repudiation of Clinton’s Executive Order, the Bush Administration itself resumed pipeline negotiations with the Taliban in February of 2001. (At one meeting, a Taliban official presented President Bush with an expensive Afghan carpet.)"


But the Bush Administration meant to prevail, by force if necessary. As early as March 15, 2001, when Jane’s, the British international security journal disclosed the fact, the Administration was engaged in a “concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime.” Confirming the Administration’s intended violence, George Arney of BBC News wrote a story published September 18, 2001: “U.S. Planned Attack on Taliban.” In mid-July of 2001 a “senior American official” told Mr. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary that “...military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.”
."...Finally, on August 2 of 2001, the last pipeline negotiation with the Taliban ended with a terse statement by Christina Rocca of the State Department: “Accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.” Shortly afterward, President Bush informed India and Pakistan the U.S. would launch a military mission into Afghanistan “before the end of October.”


This was five weeks before the events of 9/11..."




Thursday, December 17, 2009

Movies In Wintertime, Part 1-- So Many...And Best on a Big Screen

For real movie lovers, the winter season offers an embarrassment of choices, just when free time is at its most scarce!  Starting some time in October, building to a handful of solid releases by Thanksgiving, climaxed by an avalanche of worthy cinematic treats between Christmas and New Year, and culminating in the late-winter Awards races, those who care about serious cinema are like dieters who are starved most of the year, but "fall off the wagon" at holiday-time....

Along with the the activity required to prepare for holiday visits with family and friends---the shopping, the intrigue, the wrapping, the cooking, the budgeting, and the scheduling of parties and get-togethers---now I have almost a dozen movies I need to attend soon, or risk missing them in their "natural habitit"--The BIG screen:




                                My list includes:

"Nine" (the pulsing, rhythmically edited musical number "Be Italian" in the trailer stopped everyone in their tracks...as brilliant as, I hope, is the movie)
"Precious" (another powerful trailer...can the film deliver?)
"A Single Man" (THE must-see....check my Christopher Isherwood series..)
"What's the Matter With Kansas" (not part of the Awards Derby, but a fascinating subject)
"Brothers" (Toby McGuire, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Natalie Portman---a potent combination!)
"Up in the Air" (Already picking up critic's awards...before many of the new releases have been...well, released....more on this in a later post)
"Avatar" (not my cup of tea, really, but I may ride in on the hype wave)
"Invictus" (the story of Mandela interests me, despite the self-
importance of Eastwood/Freeman )

"Everybody's Fine"  (a warm-hearted DeNiro has me cautious...but I love on-the-road stories)
"The Lovely Bones" (Peter Jackson sans creatures, based on a pretty good novel, told from the point of view of a murder victim...happy holidays!)

"The Road"(Cormac McCarthy's Pulitzer-winner...might be a real chore to sit through, but Viggo Mortenson is watchable!)
"Fantastic Mr. Fox"(Meryl Streep has played a nun, a rabbi, a Dane, a Pole, a midwesterner (!), a French Chef, and now...a cartoon character!  Looks great...)


Couldn't just ONE of these have played earlier in the year?  I miss the walks after emerging from a theater on balmy summer nights, and the serious discussions about the merits of a great film.....

Since "Jaws", way back in 1975, the movie production/distribution business model has changed.  After a generation or two of summer movies aimed mainly at the high-school, special-effects-geek and testosterone crowds, it appears that audiences now "use" movies differently....it's a thrill-ride, disposable, what fast food is to a great meal, not lasting, not substantial, not life-altering. And for every viewer who still believes mainstream film can help us understand our world, our humanity, using the artistry of acting,  witty and literate writing, and given depth and meaning through montage, music, lighting and photography; another viewer runs blindly to every "serious" film to prepare for the Academy Awards telecast, and maybe win the Office Oscar Pool. (Believe me, I understand this impulse...I was that person...more about that in another future post...)

To be fair, I enjoyed a couple of fine films this summer: for example, "Julie and Julia", "Taking Woodstock", "Captialism: A Love Story", "Every Little Step" (a terrific documentary about the auditions for the 1986 Broadway revival of "A Chorus Line"), "An Education", and "500 Days of Summer".
After the hype, I felt neutral about "The Hurt Locker", having not yet acquired the taste for faux-documentary hand-held camera-work and bleached-out imagery that are used as substitutes for "realism" in current films about conflicts in the Middle East; and "A Serious Man" was, for me, mere hijinx from the Coen Brothers, who persist in inviting us to ridicule characters that are placed in terribly painful situations. (I hope filmgoers DON'T confuse this with "A Single Man".)











And I avoided "Inglourious Basterds", because I think Tarantino is smug and, yes, insensitive.  Maybe I should reconsider?

~ ~ ~


So, why not wait until these movies come out on DVD or BlueRay? 


Not a bad way to go, some of the time. But I still hold on to the idea that motion pictures, as the art form was developed, were intended to be experienced on a big screen, as a shared experience. I can compare it to any number of other art forms that, although enjoyed any number of ways, need the optimum method of exhibition, in order for audiences to derive the best experience,  the full benefit of their artistry. 

A good set of i-pod headphones will deliver "Aida", or the original score to Broadway's "Billy Elliott" or "Fiddler on the Roof", or Sibelius' "Finlandia", or Beethoven's "Ninth"...etc... just fine.  Yet, being in the opera house, or playhouse, or orchestral hall, to feel the floorboards rattle, and take in the spectacle, with attention focused on the stage: the sets, costumes, movement of performers, those voices, those arias, the conductor's froth, the musicians moving as one organic entity.......a complete sensual and emotional experience....what else compares? 

We can listen to an audio book, but we miss the chance to stop and savor a paragraph of incomparable beauty over and again, or to re-read how a classic comic character is drawn in words...or to adjust our pace to the demands of the story at hand....
                                     
And we can look at beautiful sculptures or exquisite paintings in art books, and tell ourselves that we have seen them, but have missed the textures, the brush strokes, the reactions of those around us, to compare our reactions to.


The moviegoing experience, if the film is good, the sound and picture projection pristine and professional, and the audience well-behaved, transports one like no other art form, and to my mind is the closest experience we have to a dream, a psychodrama, that we share with others around us.  The home experience is too safe, too prone to distraction.  I, for one, love the way I am consumed, soaked in by the events on the screen in front of me, filling my field of vision, with no escape, the darkness blocking out all other stimulus....  I can abandon myself to vicarious escapes from danger.....give myself over to feelings of romance.... dissolve helplessly in cleansing tears...  thrill to the movement and color and sound of a great musical interlude, or sweeping sequences of spectacle.  It's all much larger than me, and powerful.  And, best of all, sharing a laugh with others in a movie theater bonds me to them like nothing else; which is perhaps one of the best reasons to watch a movie in a theater. 

Among the films that have provided the most unforgettable cinemagoing experiences: "Annie Hall'; "Lawrence of Arabia"; "The Crying Game"; "Wait Until Dark"; "Nashville"' "The Sound of Music"; "Thelma and Louise"; "Tootsie"; "The Deer Hunter"; "Psycho"; "Brokeback Mountain"; "There's Something About Mary"....and many others...

My dream...to someday own a movie theater that doesn't need to make a profit...to show the films I love...and to finally see, on a movie screen,  many of my favorites and classics that I have only ever seen on TV.  If that happens...I promise all of my readers a free pass...!

Look here for more on Holiday Movies...the Awards Races....and other tidbits from my cinema mind...and past...