Thứ Hai, 30 tháng 9, 2013

WHERE'S THE BEEF?

Having become an extremely late convert to the church of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, I cannot pretend to have approached the thoughtlessly-titled Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 with a sense of dread or anticipation; except in that, being a fan of clever animation, I am always hopeful that new animated features will be could, and deeply suspicious they will not be (it is my suspicion that is rewarded, far more often than my hope).

Still, you don't need to be fan of the original, or even to have seen it, to figure out immediately that whatever else is true of Cloudy 2, the word "clever" is not going to be a necessary component of the reviewer's toolkit in this case. The plot is a retread of no less an august forebear than The Lost World: Jurassic Park, right down to the argument that we must leave these beautiful animals alone and let nature take its course, despite the animals being genetic freaks who've rendered the local ecosystem entirely unrecognisable.

Opening not even seconds, but mere frames after the end of the first movie, we now pick up with awkwardly innocent inventor Flint Lockwood (Bill Hader) in a romantic clinch with the science geek meteorologist Sam Sparks (Anna Faris), in the detritus of their old hometown Swallow Falls, rendered a wasteland by Flint's food-generating machine. No sooner have they and their friends and fellow heroes worked up a plan to build a new science lab for the enrichment of humanity than a visitor comes: celebrity scientist Chester V (Will Forte), or at least a holographic representation of the same, offering Flint the culmination of his lifelong dream, to work in the unbelievable high-tech laboratories of the great thinker in San Franjose, California, where the population of Swallow Falls is to be relocated for the period of their hometown's clean-up.

As is so obvious that the film doesn't even bother hiding it for more than a scene, Chester V is, of course, a villain, hoping to use Flint's defunct food generator for his own needs. However, the mutant food has developed sapience, and evolved into animal forms, and now the island is overrun by all sorts of fantastic, and deadly creatures. Several extraction teams are destroyed before Chester V elects to send the most disposable of all his employees, and the one man with the greatest working knowledge of the island: Flint himself, though when Flint's friends tag along, this presents enough of a threat to the madman's plot that he ends up traveling to the island himself.

We can play the "compare the first film and its sequel" game all day long - especially since I saw them both in barely a 12-hour span - but you don't need to point out that Cloudy 2 is a feeble echo of Cloudy 1 to start ticking off the ways that it's a pretty generic animated film; Chester V is an especially notable example, with the "professional idol proves to be a villainous jackass" twist making no less than its third appearance of 2013 (four if you count Monsters University, where Mike Wazowski is let down, not by his professional idol, but by his chosen profession itself*), but the whole thing feels so endlessly typical: the side characters are all one-note comic figures (this is an especially depressing devolution for the character of Sam, one of the most unique elements of the first movie), the hero's character arc is so rigid you could set your watch to it, and something like half of the jokes in the entire are forced puns on the names of the food-animal beings, like "Tacodile" or "Watermelephant", or "Hipotatomus", the last of which is not actually said out loud, but simply seen in passing. Yes, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 has so many damn food puns that it can't even fit all of them in.

The manic comedy performed without a net that made the first movie such a joy is nowhere in evidence: new directors Cody Cameron and Kris Pearn, alongside new writers John Francis Daley and Jonathan M. Goldstein, are playing a much safer game in this entry of the series, and the results are hard to describe as anything other than "passable". Let's get that part clear right now: Cloudy 2 isn't a bad movie. It's merely a very, very lazy one, content to coast entirely on the affection its audience is presumed to have for the first movie, and its characters, despite breaking the things that made the original good in the first place: the contrast between the sedate small town location and the giddy humor, the interplay of the characters and their spouting of funny non sequiturs, and the cleanness of its plot. Food animals isn't a bad concept for a scene, but it's not quite as managable as anything the first movie had, and the presence of a generic bad guy in Chester V - something the original mostly lacked, to its great credit - pulls too much focus from the bantering and the B-list characters, while making Flint himself an awfully generic hero.

Just about the only thing the film gets right is the visual style, which still, four years later, feels like nothing else that any major American animation studio is interesting in approaching: the physics aren't quite as madcap, but it's still stylised in ways that nice animators wouldn't think of, and Chester V boasts some absolutely terrific rubber hose animation, something almost totally unknown in this modern CGI era. That being said, the mere fact of fun style is no longer fresh, particularly when the movie tries to get by on nothing else: not wit, not likeable characters, not high-pitched energy. The big and maybe even only sin of the movie is that it is boring; and boring, I can certainly say, is the one thing that a sequel to the feverish original should absolutely have avoided being at all costs. It's just another cookie-cutter animated movie, and we've had so damn many of those lately.

6/10

OCTOBER 2013 MOVIE PREVIEW

After a year that has been, film for film and month by month, the most tepid in my living memory, we're finally hitting the good stuff: not that I am typically fond of the sort of movies that tend to get released in Oscar season, because it is a matter of record that the stuff I just love and the stuff that AMPAS just loves are not, for the most part, the same stuff. This year, though, some of the films that were probably never meant to be Oscarbaity in the first place are getting crazy awards buzz, and the season's two biggest auteur pictures by two of the most exciting filmmakers out there right now are both coming out this very same October. I presently feel something that I have felt since before May: anticipation. It is a warm and fuzzy feeling.


4.10.13

And how about that, it's one of those auteur pictures I was just talking about! Alfonso Cuarón, famous in story and song, brings his long takes and moving camera trickery to outer space with Gravity, and even if, as the early word seems to indicate, it's "only" the year's most corking, technically accomplished thriller, that's still enough to make it my most-anticipated film of the rest of 2013, though "the rest of" is a bit of a dodge - not only has it been my most-anticipated for all of 2013, it was my most-anticipated for the bulk of 2012, too, until it got delayed. So this is a long time coming for me, and while it probably can't be good enough to live up to my hopes, I will be dumbfounded if it doesn't end up squatting on a space in my year-end top 10. A prediction that, sight-unseen, I have not made for any other movie this year.

Also, Justin Timberlake whines ineffectually in front of Ben Affleck, in the techno-thriller Runner Runner. Let us spare it a moment of our pity.


10.10.13
The first day of the Chicago International Film Festival. Wish me luck.


11.10.13

The closest thing to traditional Oscarbait among the month's wide releases is a Paul Greengrass movie which should tell us a little bit about the Oscarbait. It's Captain Phillips, a true story in which Tom Hanks sports a badass attitude and a silly accent, and fights Somali pirates.

Less respectable, but I suspect more fun, Robert Rodriguez is gracing us with Machete Kills, a movie whose tawdry, dumb trailer, with it's completely sophomoric sense of humor, has been one of my favorite things this year. Suffice it to say that sensibility and taste are not winning out in my head with this one.

In limited release, the seven-year-old feature debut for Jonathan Levine, who has made and released three films since, finally gets released: All the Boys Love Mandy Lane, a horror film of some reputation. Because when you sit on a film for seven years, fucking duh your target audience will hunt it out. Also: Escape from Tomorrow, which was shot illegally in Walt Disney World and Disneyland, is making its way into theaters and allegedly onto VOD (which is, sadly, how I'll probably end up seeing it), and the basketful of conflicting feelings I have going into it will best wait for the review, because that's an essay in and of itself.


18.10.2013

There's one and only one horror movie opening this October - isn't that odd? Sadly, it's the unasked-for remake of Carrie, starring Chloë Grace Moretz, what we might call an unintuitive casting choice given the requirements of the part. Accompanying it are a pair of thrillers of different sorts altogether: '80s wet dream made '10s program-filler, the Stallone-Schwarzenegger team-up vehicles Escape Plan, and The Fifth Estate, about the controversial acts and life of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, which may or may not be a pack of lies, depending on who you listen to, but probably is a tepid headline-grabbing cash-in, according to almost everybody.

WAY more exciting are the limited releases: All Is Lost, the month's second story of surviving a crisis in extreme isolation, this time with Robert Redford on a boat, and 12 Years a Slave, in which the singular vision of British filmmaker Steve McQueen is trained on American slavery, with the most astounding-on-paper cast of the year.


25.10.2013

Cormac McCarthy's first original script, in a film directed by Ridley Scott: could go either way very easily, but I am going to choose to be excited for The Counselor until proven otherwise. Certainly, with Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa kicking it on the sidelines, I know which one I want to go to #1 for the weekend box office.

By the time that Palme d'Or winner Blue Is the Warmest Color hits Stateside theaters, I will have seen it and probably reviewed it, and probably been terribly excited about it, but it still does well to point out that it does start its potentially expansive limited release run at this point.

Chủ Nhật, 29 tháng 9, 2013

THAT'S A SHINY MEAT-A-BALL

Lord knows, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, the 2009 film that is more or less the reason that Sony Pictures Animation has any sort of brand name cachet at all, is not looking to break ground. It has a hapless male protagonist with a wacky animal sidekick, a ditzy girl supporting character, a doe-eyed moral about being true to your dreams no matter what anybody else says, far too many jokes where the punchline is "secondary character does an overwrought reaction shot", and a story that has been doing just fine for itself takes a sharp swerve into a third-act action sequence that really doesn't add much except loudness and chaos. And yet, my immediate response to it, after not even ten minutes, was that it's one of the very few major studio CGI animated features that's doing much of anything truly different. Which says much more about major studio animated features than Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, but you take these things where you can get them.

The point being, between Pixar and DreamWorks setting the path for all of their direct competitors, there has been only one game in mainstream CG for the entire time that there has been such a thing: more or less realistic lighting and sets interacting with characters who are at least physically plausible, even if they suffer from any number of misshapen bodies. What CwaCoM brings, and I do not think I can name a film to precede that does the same thing, it utter, top-to-bottom silliness and unrealism; the film almost seems to take pride in how much its characters don't move like characters, how much their design is grotesque and impossibly exaggerated, and how capricious the rules governing their universe seem to be. Let us put it this way: if Pixar, DreamWorks, Blue Sky, and all the more minor studios have largely been content to follow the Walt Disney Animation Studios approach (let us depict real movement and shapes as accurately as possible, even if the shapes and colors are unconventional), CwaCoM I think to be the first movie that follows what we could mostly accurately call the Looney Tunes approach: fuck physics, fuck subtlety, fuck plausible spaces. It is not a CG animated movie; it is a CG cartoon. This is a most gratifying thing, and even in the years since CwaCoM opened, I'm not certain that the same thing has been done again since except with Despicable Me. And I would not say that it was done as well there.

Let's hang on to that for a bit, because it's not the only important part. Maybe even not the most important part, though it is certainly what separates the film from the rest of the pack. But in addition to its aesthetic, the film boasts a remarkably good screenplay for a kid-targeting film released by a studio without a robust family films division at the time. Adapted from Judi & Ron Barrett's picture book so loosely that I think it would almost be fair not to count it, the directorial debut for the writing team of Phil Lord & Chris Miller focuses on a misunderstood nerd boy, Flint Lockwood (Bill Hader), who has for his whole life wanted to be an inventor, and makes the kind of starry-eyed devices of no real purpose that socially awkward nerd inventors are in love with in kids' movies. Let us limit ourselves to saying that he's managed to alienate the entire community of Swallow Falls, the economically devastated sardine-fishing town that's the sole habitation on an island in the mid-Atlantic, and his last stab at a world-changing invention is a food-generator, which creates meals out of nothing but water.

A disastrous test sends the device rocketing in the sky, where it sets up shop in the cloud banks perpetually hovering over Swallow Falls; and you can pretty much see where it plays out, I hope. Interacting with the moisture in the clouds, Flint's machine causes it to rain food: cheeseburgers, ice cream, and everything else the townsfolk can think to ask for. This meteorological marvel is all set to save the town's economy, but at the expense of the safety of the world, for of course the machine breaks down and starts to destroy famous monuments all over the world with specially-tailored attacks of food.

Hokum, of course, but hokum with at least a couple of differences: one is that it's the most joyfully absurd kids movies that the modern century has produced, refusing in the first place to give us a straight man - Flint's dad (James Caan) would almost count, but even he generates quite a few jokes with his brush-shaped facial hair and unseen eyes - and making all of the side characters equally weird in all sorts of different ways. It's a comedy free-for-all, basically, with every warped idea that Lord and Miller can come up with given a loving home, and the whole thing feels like a constant escalation: the monkey with the voice box (Neil Patrick Harris) whose vocabulary consists entirely of nouns in his line of sight gives way to the cop (Mr. T) wearing gym shorts and gruffly spouting authoritative commands that make very little sense, and so on and on until the film finally runs out of new non-sequiturs and has to resort to an action climax just to get things wrapped up in any linear way.

The other thing is that the characters are oddly strong, almost so that you don't notice it. Most importantly, the romantic lead, meteorologist intern Sam Sparks (Anna Faris), is a satire of all the problematic women in children's movies: she's incredibly smart and geeky, and when she deliberately acts dumb so as to not seem too well-read, it always confuses and disappoints Flint; she makes herself prettier by putting her hair up and wearing huge glasses; she has agency and her own sets of goals that complement Flint's, but are not subsumed by them (she does not interact with another named female, that I can recall, but this is an unusually smart kid's movie, not a miracle from God on high).

But pretty much all of the characters are better than their stock types let on, owing in part to a uniformly terrific voice cast (Bruce Campbell as the selfish mayor and Andy Samberg as a pathetic aging child star round things out; Benjamin Bratt has a tiny side role, but it is well done), owing in part to writing which differentiates all of them by their various comic tones, making them each feel like they have a separate personality that nonetheless come from the same place overall.

And also, the characters are a hell of a lot of fun to look at: the style is alien and weird in little doses (I avoided the film in '09 in no small part because I thought the trailers were gross), but it's admirable how quickly one acclimates to the design after being fully immersed in it, and realising that the harshly angular body movements and protuberant faces are all deliberately there to add to the sense of wacky, illogical cartoon fun; and also realising that the huge eyes with variable iris sizes are unusually well-suited to quickly expressing emotions in hugely appealing, even cute ways. The whole thing is like watching old-fashioned animation principals (physics and movement from the '50s, expressions from the '30s) given life using fancy-ass 21st Century toys, and it's a lot of fun. Lord and Miller even manage to sneak a few outright lovely gestures into their sprawling cartoon world, like the way that Flint's various experiments offer up the only fully-saturated colors in the grey-on-grey world of Swallow Falls.

It falls apart towards the end; there's no papering over that. Too much sound and fury, too much slapdash moralising, too many neat bows tying up the plotlines. That, unfortunately, is the price we pay for Pixar's run of masterpieces in the '00s: animated American movies with formulaic, jarring final acts. But taking that as a consequence of the genre, CwaCoM acquits itself quite well indeed, and everything happens before that that point hits is delirious fun; until it goes south, this is about as visually entertaining and as consistently amusing as any non-Pixar animated film of its generation, and you can't say a lot more for Hollywood animation than that.

Thứ Bảy, 28 tháng 9, 2013

ALFONSO CUARÓN: HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN (2004)

The question I would ask, for a start, is whether Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is chiefly a Harry Potter movie, or chiefly an Alfonso Cuarón movie. This is, of course, dumb as fuck: there are people who have seen and worshiped and idolised Prisoner of Azkaban who probably haven't even heard the titles of the director's other six features, and would possibly drop dead of mortification if they ever accidentally stumbled upon the sex-soaked Y tu mamá también. That being said, it's awfully easy and darn near obligatory to suggest that the eight-film franchise stretching from 2001 to 2011 breaks into two very different phases: the first two films, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, are fundamentally different than the six movies that followed them. And this shift, which I think unambiguously favors the latter six, can be attributed to Cuarón as readily as to any other individual. So perhaps the trick isn't think of Prisoner of Azkaban as the one impersonal film that Cuarón made, but to think of the latter Potter movies as Cuarón films that happen to have been directed by other people.

In at least one respect (besides the fact that it's his only mega-budget studio film), it is a clear outlier: it is the only feature in the director's career not shot by the great Emmuanuel Lubezki, replaced for reasons unknown to me by Michael Seresin (who would later shoot Cuarón's segment in the omnibus Paris, je t'aime). And Seresin is not at all without talent, and Prisoner of Azkaban is gorgeous and deeply characteristic in its visuals, but it's not, like, Lubezki-gorgeous. That's still enough for it to have ended up directly influencing the visual style of every one of the subsequent Potter films: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, directed by Mike Newell and shot by Roger Pratt, copies it almost exactly, and while the four films directed by David Yates have three unbelievably talented men shooting them (Sławomir Idziak, Bruno Delbonnel, and Eduardo Serra), using three distinctly different and personalised aesthetic appraoches, all of them are largely within the wheelhouse that Cuarón and Seresin piloted in this movie, viz. sparkly black children's fantasy that has one foot in a ghost story and one foot in a beloved childhood picture book of fairy stories. Compared to the blandly over-lit and vigorously unmagical approach that director Chris Columbus and cinematographers John Seale and Pratt used in the first two movies, this isn't just a revelation; it's more than that. Prisoner of Azkaban had to prove that a decade-spanning franchise guaranteed to be a gigantic hit because of the brand name could be more than financially successful; it had to prove that there could be thoughtfulness and artistry applied to the material, that it would actually be possible for these movies to be nice to look at and fun to watch, two phrases which apply in no degree to either Sorcerer's Stone or Chamber of Secrets.

Nearly ten years past the commanding success of Cuarón's rather drastic re-conceiving of the material, it's hard to remember how bold this was at the time: the director of a wildly well-received travelogue about sex and politics in Mexico (though it's a matter of record that the reason he got the job was his sparkling A Little Princess) being given the keys to the biggest moneymaking machine in the world, what with Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy having wrapped up the prior year, and instead of copying the model of his predecessor, pulling at damn near everything and starting from scratch with all of it. The quantum leap in the lighting, and the encroaching gloom of the atmosphere thus generated, are one obvious example. The fact that he freed up his young trio of stars to wear street clothes almost the whole time instead of their twiddly school uniforms from the first movie is another one, that frankly has just as much impact: instead of seeming like kids playing dress-up on great big sets, the movie is suddenly about actual young people. The full-on embrace of horror is another: J.K. Rowling's source novels are chock full of the normal fantasy monsters and things going bump, but the movies as a rule have edged back from that, and only Deathly Hallows: Part 1 can be compared at all to the gleeful embrace of genre technique that Cuarón explores here - it's also worth pointing out that nothing in his career before or since much resembles this, either. The results pay off splendidly: an early sequence set in a park in the dead of night, with little beads of dew backlit like the teeth of some unseen demon, and a somewhat later scene of a wraith-like Dementor reaching its skeletal hands at the heroes, are still among the very best moments of the entire franchise, and the latter might still be the best.

It all goes to prove that you can do visual and tonal darkness, mixed with gobsmacked fantasy (something else Cuarón and Seresin achieve that the previous films did not: make the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry actually look like the splendid carousel of wonders that the scripts insist on it being), and make a film that's tremendously appealing and fun and not at all too scary or glum, and the fact that any adult has ever once had something kindly to say about the Harry Potter film franchise can ultimately trace back to that incredibly important achievement.

Thank God for it, too, because outside of Cuarón's incredible accomplishment, Prisoner of Azkaban has some severe problems, starting with its script, which I genuinely believe to be the worst of all eight films. Other than Chamber of Secrets (which paid for it by being the most protracted and deathly dull of them all), each of the Potter films suffers from too much compression and rushing, mercilessly sloughing off incidents, subplots, and even entire characters, in the interest of making Rowling's doorstops reasonably contained in a running time that anybody would be willing to sit through; not a damn one of them actually manages, after all that, to tell a completely functional story. Prisoner of Azkaban, I am convinced, is the least-functional of them all: in the first hour and a half, it achieves some measure of coherence but not momentum, clanking through the worst kind of "this happened, then this happened, then this happened" anti-narrative, consisting of nothing but a long chain of scenes that are connected solely because they all involve Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), Chosen One of the British wizard world. In the remaining 50 minutes (resulting in the series' first entry to make it in south of two and a half hours), momentum is achieved at the cost of sense; from the very moment that the first of many Big Reveals takes place, the film descends into a maelstrom of tossed-off developments and undernourished backstories, hitting the bare minimum of plot points required to have the semblance of form at all (it doesn't help that, even as a novel, Prisoner of Azkaban is unique in not really possessing a "confilict" as such). The only thing that compares is the failure of Half-Blood Prince to satisfactorily clarify who the half-blood prince, in point of fact, is; and that's just one minor plot point. Prisoner of Azkaban doesn't really clarify two entire acts.

The other big issue is the acting: over the course of the franchise, Radcliffe generally got better, while Emma Watson (as the smug intellectual Hermione Granger) and Rupert Grint (as lovable schmuck Ron Weasley) both got worse, and it's in this film and the very next one that they averaged out to the lowest overall capability: a lot of super intense staring and shouting from Radcliffe, a lot of pedantically over-delivered lines from Watson, and I don't know what the hell Grint was doing in this movie. Moving on to the huge panoply of British character actors filling in the corners, some are good (David Thewlis as a Big Secret-keeping professor), some are amazingly good (Gary Oldman as a Big Secret-keeping escaped convict; Emma Thompson as a nutty, pretentious clairvoyant with, alas, no secrets of any size). As is common with these films, several are given hardly anything to do - the descent of Maggie Smith into overqualified set-dressing began in earnest here - and Michael Gambon, stepping into the shoes of the late Richard Harris, was at his very worst as the kindly, mysterious Dumbledore, trying much too hard to evoke something of Harris's characterisation in his own performance and missing by quite a lot.

That being said, the film's chief failures are dramatic, not cinematic, and as escapist fantasy spectacle, there's much to love: John Williams's final score for the series is his best, much deeper and more interlocked than the auto-pilot collection of Spielbergisms he'd used twice before, the new sets (especially the quirky little town of Hogsmeade) designed by the inexhaustible Stuart Craig are more playful than before, the CGI is pretty great across the board. Except for the werewolf, because for whatever reason, CGI werewolves never work.

And it's all shown off to beautiful effect by Cuarón, employing his trademark tracking shots (though none of them very long) to dance around the sets and explore them (the opening shot, a grand track in and then track back, gets us off on the right foot: the camera is there to sweep us into and around the movie), relying on a motif of silent-movie irises to give the film a much-welcome sense of wide-eyed storytelling, incorporating a few pitch-black jokes about harmlessly flying creatures being violently killed, and even given the three-way hug that was so crucial in Y tu mamá también a cameo. It is closer to his least complicated and rewarding filmmaking than otherwise, and like many gifted filmmakers who primarily work with humans, he seems to have been unsure what to do with CGI beasts that weren't there yet. But all in all, the filmmaker who made A Little Princess such a playful bit of fantasy and deeply respectful depiction of children is unmistakably the filmmaker behind Prisoner of Azkaban, even with all the pressures and studio tinkering that comes with making a massive-budget adaptation of a fiercely protected brand name. Whatever failures it has, it's arguably the most fun Harry Potter film to watch: inventive, quick-moving, playful, beautiful.

Thứ Sáu, 27 tháng 9, 2013

THE MISSING

Prisoners is the sort of movie that becomes more baffling the further I get from it, which feels like the exact opposite of what should be the case. Basically, we have here a movie in which damn near every stylistic choice from the director, the crew heads, and the actors suggests an achingly serious consideration of humanity's violent impulses, with several scenes in particular appropriating imagery that is surely a deliberate evocation of the Abu Ghraib torture photos, unless Denis Villeneuve is the most outrageously stupid filmmaker alive, and I don't take that to be the case. The way that scenes are constructed leaves them muted and hushed, the acting is raw and grubby and plainly aims to suggest great ragged emotions that are as destructive to the person feeling them as anything. It is the very model of an Oscarbaiting exercise in social critique and deeply ambiguous character drama...

...Except for the part where the script makes it feel more like a trashy beach read. Prisoners is about two families in suburban Pennsylvania, whose daughters are abducted on a rainy Thanksgiving. One of the two dads in question, Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman), is a dedicated survivalist with a houseful of apocalyptic gear, exactly the kind of rough man of action perfectly suited to going out and taking down kidnappers with his bare fists, though at first, shell-shocked and despondent like his wife Grace (Maria Bello) and their good friends Franklin Birch (Terrence Howard) and his wife Nancy (Viola Davis), he's content to let the police do their jobs, in the form of indefatigable Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal). And beyond doubt, Loki - a character name much too specific to have no payoff, and it doesn't; though it's no "Keller Dover", that's for fucking sure - gets off to a good start, finding the mentally underdeveloped Alex Jones (Paul Dano), who was driving an RV that the girls were playing on shortly before they went missing. But when Alex proves unlikely to have the mental capacity to understand kidnapping, let alone perpetrate it, he goes free; and this is when Keller goes Lone Wolf, stealing the young man and locking him in an abandoned building, regularly beating him into near-unconsciousness for information. Loki, realising that something has gone massively wrong with Keller's head, now has a two-front investigation: first finding the girls, and second, figuring out what the hell the bereaved dad is up to.

There are clearly ways to make this a brutal, pulverising depiction of dark obsession, as a man faced with an unsolvable problem turns to violence as an outlet for his frustration. Indeed, with the pedigree it has (that cast! that art-house director! that Roger Deakins cinematography!) it's quite inexplicable that Prisoners is very much not that: it is a rip-roaring thriller that's far more concerned with seeding clues about its twist-ridden mystery than with exploring any of the themes theoretically embodied by its characters, or plot. Missing little girls, the constantly-dangled possibility of their gruesome murder looming over every inch of the film, aren't a way into a dissection of the perfect American family broken apart by savagery both external and internal, they're a MacGuffin. One needs only look at the film that Prisoners most superficially resembles, the Gyllenhaal-starring Zodiac, to see how much braininess Prisoners lacks.

And that's not a problem, exactly, because Aaron Guzikowski's mystery-thriller script is pretty well-constructed for a roller coaster ride, starting with a great many random, and apparently pointless asides that slowly coalesce in the final act, a neat trick of screenwriting where apparent sloppiness is revealed as cunning (though the same final act, and the ludicrous extremes of the reveals it carries with, replaces that deceptive sloppiness with actual sloppiness, or at least with wildly escalating melodrama that becomes increasingly unpersuasive, and a truly dreadful camp performance by Melissa Leo). It is, however, tonally mismatched from the film that Villeneuve apparently thinks he's making; overblown melodrama and grimy police procedural thrills can work just fine, but not when you're treating them as nuanced character drama. Jackman, realising this, compensates with a burly performance that goes from "angry" to "fucking goddamn angry" with little room outside, and occupies precisely the B-movie register that the plot requires. No-one else in the cast really fits, though Gyllenhaal, in a physically fussy performance (involving a distracting, then brilliantly distracting, tic of blinking his eyes all the time), plays the workaday cop role to sometimes awesome perfection: his cool readings of repeated lines like "I hear what you're saying" and "I need you to calm down" make him one of the most authentic-feeling movie cops of recent vintage. But the jam-packed cast Oscar nominees and well-liked character actors is, for the most part, doing everything weird. Not wrong, objectively; not unconventional in a way that seems fresh and revelatory. Just weird. Viola Davis, in particular, who has not been given one-tenth of the material that she deserves, and ends up spending a lot of time standing still, out of focus, in the back of shots, except for the big show-stopper scene where she basically copies her own work in Doubt.

Weirder still is the cinematography, which is unbelievably gorgeous. The opening shot, a lingering, solemn pan back from a snowy forest with a deer walking through, sets the tone for the rest of the movie in two important ways. First, because it is sublime and picturesque; not many people can fuck up trees in snow, of course, but not many people also shot Fargo, the best-looking winterscape movie of all time, and also have a claim to being the best living cinematographer on top of it. It's the first of a great many shots in the movie that are so beautiful that you just want to pause the film and never start it up again, just gawking at the perfect color, the lighting, the immediacy of the emotions created by those things. There are shots of cars in the rain at night that make a bid for being the best single frame in any movie I have yet seen in 2013.

Anyway. The second thing that sets the tone is that this opening shot (which, incidentally, includes Jackman's growly recitation of the Lord's Prayer, setting up a theme of religion that goes to so many places involving so many actions by so many characters that it ceases to be a theme at all, and is more of a lazy crutch for the filmmakers to imply gravitas without actually doing the work to justify it) is unbelievably solemn and severe, and that will be true of the movie, too: even the moments that are straight-up jump scares, as when Loki finds snakes in airtight plastic bins, are treated by Deakins and Villeneuve with merciless sobriety. The mere fact that snakes are in airtight plastic bins in the home of a crazy psycho (but not the crazy psycho) tells us that we're in a place that maybe requires a bit more levity and bounce than earnest dramatics, and to its credit, Prisoners is a rollicking old thriller, blitzing through 153 minutes fast enough and tightly enough that it doesn't feel ruinously overlong. But it keeps acting like it wants to be so much more than a rollicking old thriller, and the gulf between that perception and the fact of what's happening onscreen leaves the film much worse off than if it was content just to be crafty cinematic junk food. Too much ambition can be a bad thing, it turns out.

6/10

Thứ Năm, 26 tháng 9, 2013

TIM AT TFE: THE MOUSE THAT ROARED

This week's essay: in celebration of its 75th anniversary, a review of the Mickey Mouse short Brave Little Tailor.

Thứ Tư, 25 tháng 9, 2013

ALFONSO CUARÓN: Y TU MAMÁ TAMBIÉN (2001)

It is not an unnoticed fact, but one still worth mentioning, because it is fun, that the career of Alfonso Cuarón repeated itself in a weirdly specific way. First, in 1991, he made Soló con tu pareja, a Mexican film with political overtones, that features a lot of sex. Then he went to America and made A Little Princess, a kids' movie based on a well-liked work of children's literature. He then made Great Expectations, a film for adults adapted, very loosely, from a novel.

In 2001, he made another Mexican film with political overtones, that features a lot of hugely explicit sex. Then he went back to America and made a kid's movie based on the most popular work of children's literature in the world. He then made a film for adults adapted from a novel so loosely that it barely counts any more.

The moral of the story: fuck you, Gravity.

So let's now turn to that Mexican film with political overtones and sex. The second one, I mean. It is a certain Y tu mamá también, and it's the film where Cuarón first gained acclaim in and of himself, rather than as the very sincere and talented journeyman director of A Little Princess (Soló con tu pareja not being widely available outside of Mexico until deep into the 2000s, and Great Expectations being largely disliked). Not coincidentally, it's also the film where Cuarón really turned into the specific auteur that we are inclined to describe him as in a post-Children of Men world, which was a deliberate act of will. The filmmaker hasn't exactly trumpeted the story, but he's not ashamed to tell of it either (the timing's too perfect not to share this recent interview), that making Great Expectations was not a good experience: he was not terribly enthusiastic about the results, and for his return to the mother country, made a conscious choice to open up his aesthetic and make things in a way that the Hollywood apparatus would have made difficult.

The results are revelatory. Let's not mince words - revelafuckingtory. In all the ways I can think of, Y tu mamá también is a monumental, transformational motion picture, challenging the viewer and changing the way you think of movies being put together, the stories they can tell, and the ramifications of those stories. To begin with, it has what might well be the single best depiction of adolescent sexuality in any film of the 21st Century, treating with candid humor and perfect seriousness one of the subjects that is quintessentially Off Limits. For all that sexed-up teenagers being horny is a commonplace occurrence to the point that it's just wallpaper now, grappling with teens as psychological actors ho have sexual urges and needs, rather than wacky boner jokes. It even depicts, with jaw-dropping plainness and documentarylike accuracy, the physicality of teen sex, requiring the viewer to consider with non-prurient interest the fact that 18-year-olds (the actors, of course, were all legal adults) do in fact do these things: they perform and receive oral sex, they ejaculate. Oh, how they ejaculate, in what is unquestionably the most shocking scene of the film, all the more so because the film itself isn't looking to shock us, but simply present the characters' reality.

While we're still on sex: Y tu mamá también is, if anything, even more transgressive and shocking for the way that it discusses and analyses gendered approaches to sexual pleasure. The very first line of the film finds an 18-year-old boy in the midst of sex staking a claim on his girlfriend's body, and viewed from the right angle, the conflict for the rest of the film is predicted on unconscious male privilege in a macho society finding itself at odds with strong, self-directed female self will; after the legendary masturbating-into-a-pool scene,the most commanding and sexually blunt scenes in the film involve a 30-ish woman giving instructions to teen boys ten years her junior as to how to best please a woman sexually, finding their clumsiness charming right up until she abruptly and angrily finds it selfish and cold.

That is, mind you, the conflict viewed from the right angle. From a slightly different one... oh, let me just write a damn plot synopsis already, so I can start using specifics. Best friends Julio Zapata (Gael García Bernal) and Tenoch Iturbide (Diego Luna) have just barely graduated from high school in Mexico City, and their respective girlfriends, Cecilia (María Aura) and Ana (Ana López Mercado), are traveling to Europe for the summer to celebrate, leaving the boys to do absolutely nothing. Just hang around, jerking off, smoking pot, eschewing responsibility. It comes to pass that at a wedding in which all the important members of Tenoch's father's political party are in attendance (the elder Iturbide is a high-ranking politician), they meet Luisa Cortés (Maribel Verdú), the Spanish-born wife of Tenoch's writer cousin. With the horny certitude of 18-year-olds, the boys try to flirt with her by inventing a fantastic, pristine beach far away from the city, though the woman very coolly and wittily shuts them both down.

A little while later, her husband confesses that he's been having an affair, begging forgiveness. Stunned and mad, Luisa immediately contacts the boys and agrees to go on their trip. The facts that the Boca de Cielo beach doesn't exist, and that neither of them knows much about the world outside of Mexico City, are of minimal concern to either of the young men, what with a smoking hot older woman willing to spend five days alone in a car with them, and so, with the world's shittiest route planned out, the three plunge in to the Mexican countryside, and it's here that Cuarón and his screenwriter brother Carlos get to explore all kinds of fraught interpersonal relationships and sociopolitical concerns, in ways that never stop seeming supple, complex, and sophisticated, no matter how many times you see it.

Broadly, Y tu mamá también is about class and gender, both of them awfully large terms, which makes it all the more impressive how very much the film is able to get to in its jam-packed 106-minutes. There are all sorts of nifty divisions between the characters: Luisa is European, where Julio and Tenoch are Mexican; Tenoch is upper-class, Julio is lower-middle-class, Luisa has risen steadily from isolated poverty to something that can easily inhabit the upper class without being part of it. With the film depicting a specific, greatly significant moment in Mexican political history, it's this latter division that especially drives the movie, which, viewed from the other best angle, is about how class divisions that seem totally frivolous in adolescence start to fester and become big and nasty the more of an adult you become. It's not prescriptive: though there seems little reason to doubt that the filmmakers are sympathetic to the underclasses and the leftists (there's a haunting little aside involving a fisherman stripped of his livelihood that's one of the best criticisms of capitalist progress ever filmed), but that's not really the focus. Instead, it's on how class represents not just having and not-having, but an entire code of thinking about the world, and one's place in it. The jealousy and self-abnegation on Julio's side, and the superior contempt on Tenoch's, are very slowly teased out across the movie, in any number of ways, from screaming match where both boys use class-loaded words, to the narrator's blithe comparison of how the two boys use the toilet at each other's house: Julio lights a match to make sure that his stink doesn't hang around, while Tenoch raises the seat with his foot, to avoid touching it with his skin. It's a brilliant line: entirely illustrative of the exact point the Cuaróns want to put across, while feeling quite authentic to the experience of the two scatologically-obsessed characters.

Oh, and the narrator: mustn't forget to mention him. Voiced by Daniel Giménez Cacho in the crisp, impersonal tones of a newscaster, the narration in the film is its quintessential formal element, offering up a thick slice of ironic distance between us and the action (every time the narrator speaks, the ambient noise cuts out completely; frequently, this is as jarring to the film's created reality and narrative momentum as '60s-era Jean-Luc Godard at his most caustically formalist), dashing the idea of the film's realism even as it incalculably deepens its world. Frequently, the narrator has nothing to say about the plot at all, but to call our attention to some aspect of life, or some political event, that the main characters do not notice or care about, creating the sense that there is a bigger world than what is depicted in the film and emphasising the small, trivial focus of the protagonists on nothing bigger than their own impulses and urges.

Still, artificial or not, trivial or not, the three leads of Y tu mamá también are an especially rewarding set of characters to spend time with. They're not always likable; they're typically not likable, in the case of the boys. But they are powerfully authentic, they exude vitality, they have the ability to think, even when they're thinking about how to justify not thinking. Their behaviors are both heavily laden with symbolism about age, gender roles, and the political history of Mexico (the character names are pointedly metaphorical: Tenoch, a 14th Century Aztec ruler - ancient tradition, conservatism. Zapata, the 20th Century revolutionary - class awareness, radical leftism. Cortés, the Spanish explore - the European who vitalises the Mexicans at the cost of destroying them), and the filmmakers are overt in linking the boys' coming-of-age to the 2000 elections that radically shifted Mexico's political fortunes, but they also seem like exactly who they are: two cocksure teen boys and one increasingly regretful adult woman, playing each other against one another, so wrapped up in their little drama that a transforming Mexico passes them without their noticing. The performances are so complete and natural and lived-in that it hardly seems possible to talk about them using the vocabulary of acting. Luna, García Bernal, and particularly Verdú are so confident in their bodies, clothed and unclothed, active and passive, that even while they've all become much more famous in the years since the film was new, there's literally not a single scene where I'm thinking about the construction of characters, just the characters themselves.

The film is about the characters and the world and the way they interact with it and each other; and so it is right and good that it should boast such keen visual depiction of that flow between person and space, in the most stylistically radical by far of all the movies that Cuarón and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki had made to that point. Look at the handheld camera and graininess, and you would say that they were going for a kind of documentaryrealism; you would be right. Look at the way that Lubezki films landscapes and cityscapes (and there are many of both in this film) with a bleeding-out mistiness, and you would say that they were going for romanticism or impressionism; you would also be right. Look at the frequent long takes, particularly the ones that glide along invisibly as the car drives endlessly down the highway, or the fantastic one near the film's end where Luisa steps over to a jukebox and the camera follows her, at which point Verdú looks straight into the lens and walks the camera back, and you would say a lot of things, maybe; "what sort of eldritch geniuses came up with that shot, culminating in the jackhammer-like impact of that three-way hug?" is one of the things I said, the first time I saw it. Oh, I'm lying, every time I've seen it. But the long tracking shots that only now firmly assert themselves in Cuarón and Lubezki's shared toolkit are absolutely essential to Y tu mamá también; they create its sense of flow, of forward momentum, of a continuous space (call it the world, call it Mexico, or just call it the the unified space between these characters), and of a passionate, probing desire to explore that space. It's positively Renoirvian (Renoiresque?) how the filmmakers use the camera to not depict the characters, but to wander around their homes and the places they find themselves, telling us so much more about how the world works and how people live by soaking in details indiscriminately than could ever happen with just another conversation in two-shot.

Basically, this film is a masterpiece: a sexual masterpiece, a social masterpiece, an aesthetic masterpiece, a psychological masterpiece. And yet it's not, because "masterpiece" implies that it wasn't ever topped, which totally happened, when next Cuarón and Lubezki trained their camera on a world of people in transition and turmoil; but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Y tu mamá también is flawless if that word applies to anything in art, and just because the director made another flawless film, that takes away nothing of the achievement of this one, his coming-out party as one of the most interesting and vital international filmmakers of the brand new century.

Thứ Hai, 23 tháng 9, 2013

DANCE, DANCE, OTHERWISE WE ARE LOST

They say that good things come to those who wait, and I am happy to report that after months of patient waiting, 2013 has finally produced a movie that's so bad it's good, in the form of 3-D sports/dance hybrid Battle of the Year, something of a b-boying themed remake of the 1989 taekwondo tournament movie Best of the Best, which I'm 100% sure is a cultural touchstone all of you immediately recognise. Short version: a team training hard as possible, quickly as possible, to win the "Olympics of b-boying", Battle of the Year in France. Long version: that, plus a degree of fist-pumping jingoism not seen so widely, in such an uncut form, since Cannon Films fell out of the habit of siccing Chuck Norris on an army of expendable Russians back in the '80s.

We are introduced, in the funniest scene I have watched in a movie theater this calendar year, to hip-hop impresario Dante (Laz Alonso) addressing the board of directors of his multi-media empire with a most grievous concern. The children do not like breaking! And if that most ancient dance, one of the cornerstones of hip-hop culture since its inception, shall fall out of favor in the United States, than surely it's only a matter of time before hip-hop dies out as a major force in the marketplace. "I overheard some kids saying that b-boying is no longer cool" frets Dante with deep gravity, and the whole tenor of the scene suggests that not just his company but the entire American economy rests on finding a way to make the dance popular again, now. Plainly, Americans need to regain our dominance in the art form that we invented before those foreigners took it away from us, goddammit. Success at the international level, giving all American kids something to root for against the French and Germans and those asshole Koreans, will be exactly what it takes to make b-boying wonderfully popular! B-boying, apparently, is soccer.

Dante's first idea is to find his old friend from the early days of the scene, Blake or "WB" (Josh Holloway), a former basketball coach and current alcoholic. Giving Blake a blank check to do whatever he wants is the first step of many on the road to forming an unstoppable crew, the "Dream Team" of American b-boying, and Blake's task is to take the egos, rivalries, and meanness that have for so long condemned the Americans to failing in international competitions of an originally American style, and strip them away, to make a team that is about the betterment of all and not just the showboating of some. If, by this point in the synopsis, you're eagerly wondering whether Blake's newfound sense of purpose and affection for the ragtag crew he's training get him off the hooch, or whether the prickly personalities and distrust among the b-boys, especially talented hot-heads Do Knock (Jon Cruz, who actually dances under the name... Do Knock) and Rooster (noted domestic abuser Chris Brown), will prevent them from gelling as a team and learning to respect each other, then Battle of the Year desperately wants you to go see it right this second, because you are going to eat that shit up with a spoon.

For everyone else, the appeal of Battle of the Year lies almost exclusively in the complete lack of success with which it freshens up the unbelievably musty scenario, or in the helpless, tasteless ways that director Benson Lee inserts references to his own 2007 documentary Planet B-Boy, beatified as the very Gone with the Wind of breaking movies, particularly in the scene where a giddy b-boy fan named Franklyn (Josh Peck) - "Franklyn with a 'Y'", he calls himself, so many times that I was legitimately outraged that he didn't show up under that name in the end credits - forces Blake to stream it from Netflix that very second, to teach the ignorant old man about the current state of the art. Awesomely, at the time of Battle of the Year's long-delayed release (it was pushed a full eight months from January, where it would have at least seemed a little less incongruous), Planet B-Boy was not, in fact, available to stream from Netflix, which makes this incomparably ballsy product placement totally ineffective, in addition to hilariously crass and tacky. But not as tacky as the way that Franklyn with a "Y" first accesses Netflix on his new Sony tablet, do you see how shiny and technically advanced it is? And not nearly as hilarious as the scene where Dante gives all the b-boys a goodie back of presents that elicits the breathless response, "I got a PS Vita!", a sentence never said by any human being ever in such an orgasmic tone of voice.

The goofy melodrama is interspersed, at intervals, by some of the worst dance choreography I have seen in my entire experience of the urban dance subgenre, completely wasting the fact that outside of noted domestic abuser Chris Brown, all of the b-boys are played by actual b-boys (most of them, incidentally, are better actors than noted domestic abuser Chris Brown, though none get such a dramatic Oscarbait scene as his snot-filled weepy farewell); and 3-D helps these dance numbers out not at all, serving only to make them murkier and not to make them in any way visually kinetic. Along the way, a token female (Caity Lotz) is introduced, and even the movie doesn't try to pretend she needs to be there after the initial "I will never ever have sex with any of you" jokes, and the actual Battle of the Year is presented with a level of microscopic arcana that suggests Lee and his screenwriters, Brin Hill and Chris Parker, were unaware that there might be anywhere in the world someone who is not infinitely familiar with the process of scoring professional breakdancing battles.

Through all of this, Holloway - a much better actor than the material, though that's true of almost any actor sober enough to stand on two legs for more than ten seconds at a stretch - attempts to anchor the material with grave, pained looks and barked out lines that are meant to evoke the hundreds of no-nonsense teacher and coach movies over the decades, but married to the fizzy idiocy of the script and the anemic characterisations in which people are given one trait (the gay kid, the young father, the... actually, I think that's all of them), the junky filmmaking, and the uniformly bad acting of every other person onscreen, Holloway's furrowed-brow attempts at gravitas end up playing as campy overreach more than anything, the one Very Serious Actor who doesn't realise he's in a shitty-looking clown show. It's wasted effort on the actor's part, but it's the perfect mordant center for a whirlwind of daft occurrences and strained dialogue and constantly mis-conceived dramatic beats; such earnest bad filmmaking that it becomes one of the most refreshingly silly things I've seen in weeks.

2/10

49th CHICAGO INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL: PREVIEW

The Chicago International Film Festival has a schedule, and it's starting up in barely more than two weeks. Which makes this the deliciously chaotic time to figure out what hell it's worth seeing.

For starters, there are a good number of big, important releases, certainly more than last year: August: Osage County, Inside Llewyn Davis, The Immigrant, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, 12 Years a Slave, Philomena, Kill Your Darlings, and Blue Is the Warmest Color will all be getting gala presentations. Speaking privately, these have never been my favorite part of the festival, given that I'll be able to see all of them eventually, even within a week or less of the festival itself; but it's pleasing to see CIFF upping its game at least a little bit. It is only a regional festival and has no pretensions to competing at the level of the great big premiere-heavy festivals, but for those that want a bit more glitz and polish, this is a far better slate than there's been for a while.

Personally, I'm much more excited about this year's world cinema spotlight: an entire program of African features and shorts. Generally speaking, the cinema of Africa is unusually hard to find in the United States, and one of the great pleasures of a well-stocked film festival is getting some exposure to that continent's artistic output. In fact, this year it's causing me a problem, of sorts: ordinarily, when only two or three African films are on the schedule, I make a point of seeing all of them. With so many things to choose from, I'm suddenly thrown for a loop now: all that African cinema is threatening to make my scheduling quite impossible, and carving that list down to something manageable is absolutely defeating me; right now, the "raw" schedule I'm trying to turn into something final is stocked to the point that I'd have a nervous breakdown if I tried to keep up with it all.

Particularly with the horror subcategory, After Dark, also boasting a strong collection of movies, though not as dumbfoundingly long as the African film program. The point of all of this being, if anybody out there reading this can help me take focus either of those two categories into something a little less comprehensive than "all of them". Which is my aim right now.

And that's not including some of the other titles I'm especially looking forward to: a pair of hugely long documentaries, Frederick Wiseman's At Berkeley and Claude Lanzmann's The Last of the Unjust, alongside several other terribly interesting-looking non-fiction films (right now, I'd say that the Iranian Trucker and the Fox and Honor Diaries, a Canadian/Israeli film about women's role in the Arab spring, are my two biggest priorities on that front).

Some of the plain old narrative films I'm most excited about include Jafar Panahi's Closed Curtain; the Mexican Heli, winner of Best Director at Cannes; an Indian action film with a split "what if" structure called Monsoon Shootout; H4, described as a contemporary African-American gloss on the Henry IV plays; a true-life German crime thriller, Banklady; and a Croatian-Serbian black comedy, The Priest's Children. For the first time in a while, there's not a single feature-length animated project, which I'm actually grateful for; there's enough on my plate as it stands. I have more than 45 films on my "maybe" pile, that I need to get down to a number around half that many, so if anybody has heard anything about any of the titles I mention here, good or bad, your help would be awesomely appreciated. I don't ordinarily put my CIFF schedule sausage-making out in the open like this, but I also don't think I've ever been so daunted by the amount of must-see stuff in one burst. This is the right problem to have, of course, and the reason that even in an increasingly streaming world, film festivals matter: it's a one-shot opportunity to see most of these things, and I want to make the most of it.

WHAT'S HAPPENING SOON

October is just about upon us, and it brings with it the kick-off of Super Crazy Year-End Time here at Antagony & Ecstasy. So the time has come for a couple of announcements.

First, the Chicago International Film Festival announced its schedule last week, and I've spent some time living with it since then; my full thoughts will be coming later today, if you just can't possibly bear to wait for my preview of an event most of you will be in absolutely no position to take part in.

Second, Kevin at Hugo Stiglitz Makes Movies announced the fourth Italian Horror Blogathon over the weekend, and while it's not coming up for a month yet, I can think of no reason not to start spreading the word now, so anyone who wants to take part has plenty of time to think of what they want to do.

Thứ Bảy, 21 tháng 9, 2013

ALFONSO CUARÓN: GREAT EXPECTATIONS (1998)

At the time it was happening, the brief but showy run of modern-day literary adaptations of the late '90s (bracketed approximately by Clueless in 1995 and O in 2001) was immensely annoying, at least to me; too much enthusiastic cribbing from the flash-and-dazzle teen culture of the day, far too many shrill attempts to find modern analogues to pre-industrial concepts in ways that are meant to be clever and virtually never are. But a certain creeping nostalgia over the intervening decade has left the things feeling charmingly kitschy and delightful, the way that so many pop culture curios seem more tolerable the further you're removed from their cultural moment (I am particularly thinking of the AIP beach movies, but maybe I'm the only one who kind of loves them). Still, outside of Clueless itself, most of them aren't actually "good" in most of the usefully quantifiable ways (though I would go to the mat for the irredeemably trashy, insanely fun Cruel Intentions).

In most ways, the 1998 Great Expectations isn't a particularly noteworthy representative of this trend, except in one immensely important though easily-ignored way: it is far and away one of the most aggressively stylised, second only to Baz Luhrmann's phantasmagoric William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet. This, of course, is what happens when you throw director Alfonso Cuarón and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki at a project, and to a lesser degree, editor Steven Weisberg: the only man to cut the three films where Cuarón did not serve as editor himself, which also happen to be the three least-interestingly-edited films of the director's career, though Great Expectations is itself the best of those.

Before we get too far into that, there's a huge caveat. The style is great; the style is beautiful; the style is radical. All of that. Tragically, the style is empty. In every other one of Cuarón's features, including his immediately preceding collaborations with Lubezki and Weisberg, A Little Princess, the succulent lighting and meandering camera and formal gamesmanship and all other joyful things are almost always used to establish or reinforce character, to draw our attention to physical space, to throw the viewer bodily into an emotional reaction, or (particularly in Y tu mamá también, his next film), the opposite of all that, to create an abstract separation between us and the onscreen material, that we might intellectually reflect on it. The point is, it always serves one of four masters: character, story, emotion, theme.

With Great Expectations, we arrive at what I believe to be the only "style for style's sake" movie in Cuarón's career, which is actually kind of impressive, given how much style there is in his cinema. There are many ideas thrown at the screen, and many of them make damn little sense at all, and the feeling of it is somewhat unfortunately that the director was trying as hard as he could to compensate for a pretty crappy screenplay, adapted from Charles Dickens's novel by Mitch Glazer, whose bona fides for this project consist in his having written another modern Dickens film ten years prior, Scrooged. Which is a good film, and conceptually delicious. But making the 600th filmed A Christmas Carol as a late-'80s Bill Murray vehicle, and making the first big-screen adaptation of the author's most pitiless drama in more than half a century require different skill sets. Points for trying - even a short Dickens novel is oozing with subplots and melodramatic hairpin turns - but the condensation that Glazer ended up producing isn't a terribly effective piece of drama in its own right, and it's certainly not an effective adaptation of the book in any way (and I should perhaps disclose around this point that Great Expectations is my favorite English-language novel. Not the one I think is the best; just my favorite).

The latter part of that equation isn't worth bothering about (but really, "Finnegan 'Finn' Bell" is a more reasonable and modern-sounding name than "Philip 'Pip' Pirrip"? In what fucking universe?), but the former part clearly is, because it's one of the chief reasons that Great Expectations is the worst movie of Cuarón's career. In taking this story of how Finn Bell rises from childhood (Jeremy James Kissner) into young adulthood (Ethan Hawke), from grinding poverty to the wonderfully free life of an artist with a wealthy patron, from innocence to wizened knowledge, and stuffing it into 111 minutes, Glazer did what was, in 1998, the most obvious thing possible: he focused on the love story. Which is fine, but Great Expectations isn't a love story at all, it's a bildungsroman that uses a chronologically splintered love story as its structuring element, and the bulk of the plot is in all the things that aren't the history of romantic tension between Finn and Estella (Raquel Beaudine as a kid, growing up to be Gwyneth Paltrow). So in order to be absolutely anything as far as a story goes, the script has to cram plot in wherever there's room, which results in a final 30 minutes that feel like a madcap race involving Craaazy Robert De Niro and CRAAAAAAAZIER Anne Bancroft, and no room for modulating anything.

The whole movie is a disaster of pacing, really. The best part is the frequently terrific opening quarter, in which Little Finn, living with his loving brother-in-law Joe (Chris Cooper) and not very loving sister Maggie (Kim Dickens) on the Gulf Coast of Florida, crosses paths with an ex-convict (De Niro), and later, becomes the human plaything of a bizarre wealthy old spinster, Ms. Dinsmoor (Bancroft), who, as we ken to before the rest of the characters do, is grooming him to be the object of her revenge against the male gender. It's slow, it explores characters expansively and at depth, it builds place beautifully - Lubezki's camera makes Florida look as good as it ever, ever has on film - and Bancroft's camp-addled turn as Dinsmoor, under several inches, it seems, of makeup, is a perfect disorienting force for the rest of the movie to hang on.

But once Finn grows up, it's scattershot and arrhythmic, jogging through days of plot in seconds, and then lingering out on scenes that don't seem to matter more than any other scenes, and then indulging in a maddening "make a painting of the hot naked chick" montage that makes one cry out in pain for Titanic. When David Lean and a squadron of writers made their Great Expectations in 1946, they encountered none of these problems: that film is smoothly told, eminently clear, richly suffused with character. And it's almost certainly the best cinematic Dickens adaptation ever. The '98 Great Expectations is total Amateur Hour in comparison, fumbling major plot reveals and character arcs in its fevered pursuit of The Fucking Love Story.

Which would have even worked, if the love story had been anything worth a damn. The reason that it's not is partially due to a script that is more interested in what people do than who they are, more to Hawke and Paltrow's deadly, hopeless performances. I'm generally someone willing to defend the wildly over-maligned Paltrow, but she's a parody of her worst habits in this one: too much archness, too much irony, and the film treats her like a blonde hairdo and calculating eyes and nothing else, anyway. Hawke is far more damaging: maybe the very worst thing he's ever done, in fact (he'd do better in the modern literary game with 2000's Hamlet), defensible only in that the bratty '90s alpha male shtick that he resists not at all is a good way of expressing the fallen, selfish Pip of the novel, though not really the Finn in the screenplay. The rest of the cast fares well - Cooper is the easy best in show, and Bancroft is on some other planet where "good" and "bad" judgments of acting don't apply - but Finn is the thing holding the movie together, and if he's a flat, insipid douchebag, well...

All of which is a ridiculously long-winded way of saying that, if Cuarón and company end up throwing all the style they've got at the film, that's less because it feels like they're bringing it to life, than because they're trying, desperately, to compensate for a perpetually stalled drama. Even then, the aesthetic choices are odd as often as they're exciting: the odd habit of using dissolves, rather than straight cuts, in the scenes with Estella as a child might have worked if they paid off (you can explain the dissolves as a gesture towards Finn's hazy, dreamy relationship to Estella, or some bullshit like that), but once Paltrow takes over the role, the technique is stopped. And in the film's numerous, vigorously Expressionistic canted angles, we finally run across something I had thought did not exist: a choice made by Emmanuel Lubezki that absolutely does not work out.

Even the parts that work best, aren't entirely great. Like the color palette, bringing back the green from A Little Princess and marrying it to a few key explosions of red, green's opposite; the red works incredibly well (particularly in a pair of shots at the very beginning and the very end, both involving De Niro), but where A Little Princess had a specific and clear purpose in using the director's favorite color, this movie pretty much just has green.

There are a few genuinely, unimpeachable artistic touches: the editing frequently uses quick repetitions of a single beat to emphasis Finn's moments of strong emotion, and the accretion of bombastic and showy images, particularly those anchored by the unhinged Dinsmoor, ends up giving the film a sense of abstraction that legitimately does distract from how the plot never works. And it's deliriously pretty: pretty Florida exteriors, pretty Florida interiors, thrilling use of the Z-axis in compositions (though outside of a couple tracking shots - one where young Finn runs home after his run-in with the convict made me literally gasp - the camera is mostly strapped-down, a real disappointment for this director and cinematographer). But pretty isn't enough to save the movie; it's what encourages me to say, "this is not very good" instead "man, fuck this thing". It's tremendously well-made. But seriously, fuck it.

Thứ Sáu, 20 tháng 9, 2013

RAISE YOUR VOICE

Generally speaking, In a World... is so gosh-almighty damn adorable that it's way too easy to lose track of how weirdly dense its script is. Herein, we have a movie that wants to be an affectionately wacky inside-baseball comedy about one of the most marginal acting fields in the film industry; that wants to be a loud and proud feminist statement about using talent, passion, and cunning to chip away at male privilege so vigorously entrenched that it's impervious to even the smallest measure of consciousness-raising; that wants to be an emotionally unflinching dramedy about professional jealousy between parents and children; and that wants to be an indie romantic comedy that combines the quirky excess of a mid-'00s film with emphatically naturalistic performances by an immoderately well-stocked cast. It manages to succeed at each and every one of these goals in the span of a relentlessly laconic 93 minutes, which shouldn't have been possible anyway, let alone in the first feature-length project made by its writer-director.

So let's start, then, by praising with great praise the name of Lake Bell, who's also the star and producer; if this is one of those "talented actress writes herself a leading role because nobody else was going to fucking do it" stories, it has the benefit of an especially talented actress who surely did deserve a terrific, worshipful leading part, something I've felt ever since she elevated the tacky, typical romantic comedies Over Her Dead Body and What Happens in Vegas with her terrific supporting turns, a long half-decade ago. If In a World... had nothing to offer but an hour and a half of Bell knocking it out of the park, one scene after another, playing a privately self-amused and constantly self-doubting artistic striver and self-appointed smartest person in the room; I insist, if this was the sole merit of In a World..., that would be enough to make me glad that In a World... exists.

But that is not the film's sole merit, for Bell turns out to be a hell of a comedy director - not possessed of any particular intuition for elegant visuals (not that contemporary comedies bother about having meaningful aesthetics most of the time), but well aware of how to run her fellow actors through their paces, keeping the film gliding forward at a steady, smooth clip. She also keeps the film situated in a most unusual tonal register, which I hope the phrase "relentlessly laconic" already pointed out: it's cool and remote for the most part, virtually never punching up the jokes or encouraging its audience to laugh. Yet it's simultaneously so absurd and goofy in concept, setting, and plot, stopping off for so many random, loopy asides that it feels, at times, like every line and reaction shot is a new gag, however underemphasised. Clearly, this kind of low simmering wry comedy isn't to everyone's tastes, even more than most comedy; all I can say is that I, for one, haven't found anything so playful, so flat-out enjoyably funny, all year.

The movie, anyway, involves the world of voiceover acting, with Bell playing Carol Solomon, a voice coach for actors and others, and the daughter of Sam Soto (Fred Melamed), widely regarded as the greatest trailer narrator in the business following the death of legendary Don LaFontaine (who puts in a few cameos via stock footage, a slightly ghoulish, off-putting decision). But Sam is getting on in years, and grooming Gustav Warner (Ken Marino) as the heir to the throne, totally ignoring Carol's hints and outright statements that she'd like to maybe break into the traditionally male-dominated trailer-voicing business. That's the simplest way to describe a collage of plots that also involves Carol's sister (Michaela Watkins) flirting with a sexy client and misleading her decent, busy editor husband (Rob Corddry), and the population of a recording studio where Carol does most of her work, and where random chance puts her unexpectedly in the running to narrate the year's biggest trailer, advertising the first movie in a wildly-hyped series of book adaptations.

If the film, at a certain remove, exists to show off what Lake Bell can do - voices! self-effacement! gloriously expressive reaction shots! - it's also pretty generous to everybody else in the cast, giving Melamed in particular a chance to shine like all the stars in the heavens, playing a beautifully smug man of limited by undeniable talents. But everybody, even the smallest parts, have some wonderful lines and cute or funny or sweet beats to play, and Bell has managed to assemble a pretty swell population of cameos, best of whom is Eva Longoria (Bell's Over Her Dead Body co-star) in a uniquely selfless portrayal of herself as an incompetent idiot and bad actress.

Beyond the human element, Bell's exploration of a niche community within the already hermetic worlds of Los Angeles and Hollywood is at once loving and hilarious, admiring the foibles of her characters without feeling obliged to mock them or their work. The dominant mood of the film is one of pleasantness and affection, in fact, even when Bell is at her most direct in attacking the "boys only" mentality of the voiceover industry; without forgiving the entrenched sexism of the world she depicts, she also treats it more as ignorance to be pitied than villainy to be stomped on. Anyway, Carol herself is purposefully a being of flaws and sometimes poor judgments, not a figurehead, which makes the movie more entertaining and more intelligent at the same time.

The movie's only real problem - discounting its characteristic and potentially alienating sense of humor - is its dully functional aesthetic: the filmmakers (including cinematographer Seamus Tierney and editor Tom McArdle) are talented enough to know when a close-up is funnier than a wide shot, and vice-versa, and when to let moments play out in long takes as opposed to when to use rhythmic cutting to build humor, but the film as a whole has a rather uninspired and generically flat appearance, and for a film so emphatically about sound, there's nothing clever or evocative in the audio mix. It gets the job done, and stays out of the way of the script. That's important, but there have been comedies down through the years, believe it or not, that are great cinema; In a World... is merely adequate, well-crafted cinema. But it's also fantastic comedy and hugely appealing character building, and the whole thing ends up being one of the most charming and delightful movies in a very long time.

8/10

CHILDREN IN NEED

American independent filmmaking is as capable of producing uninspired, derivative hackwork as any other production model, and frequently has in the past few years. But sometimes, things just click, and we're lucky enough to get one of those truly interesting and meaningful stories about normal human lives in all their intoxicating smallness that make people speak warmly about the democratisation of filmmaking techniques. Short Term 12 is that kind of movie: on paper, it doesn't inherently sound more accomplished or engaging than any one of the dozens of low-budget films about young people forging connections and facing emotions, but the execution is hugely satisfying in all particulars, and the "intimate look into a world you've never thought about" conceit is genuinely illuminating for once.

The unabashedly cryptic title turns out to refer to a facility that serves as something that's equal parts foster home and halfway house for troubled kids, though things don't turn out to be less cryptic once we find out that "Short Term 12" is a place name. This is not a film bogged down by extraneous clarification; there is no scene where a new hire is given a lengthy tour and had all the details of how the place works explained to him. Actually, there is a new hire, who specifically does not receive any of that kind of information in the film's opening scene, which mimics the experience of watching the movie: super laid-back bearded twentysomething Mason (John Gallagher, Jr.) is wrapped up in telling a long, scatological anecdote to the alarmingly intent newbie Nate (Rami Malek), when from out of nowhere a kid runs screaming across the yard and Mason and co-worker/girlfriend Grace (Brie Larson) break out after him in the blink of an eye, shouting orders at Nate, who doesn't have any time to orient himself, only enough time to react. So it is with watching the movie: it drops us in, demands that we keep up, and certainly never offers us an opportunity to get out in front of it.

So Short Term 12 isn't an explication of how facilities like this work from a practical standpoint. It is told from the point of view of the young adults staffing the place, Grace primarily, and the legal or sociological systems underpinning it simply don't matter - here we are, here are the kids that need constant attention but never the same kind of attention, keep up as best you can. It's a character piece, not a documentary, though writer-director Destin Daniel Cretton and cinematographer Brett Pawlak still use that handheld cinéma vérité style aesthetic that has devoured "serious" indie filmmaking in the last decade, so it looks vaguely documentary-ish. The film is largely given to observational naturalism, so this visual choice is hardly out of bounds, though it does have the unfortunate side effect, especially in the first scene, of making Short Term 12 look so uninspired and typical that it's tempting to immediately box it into a filmmaking ethos to which it doesn't belong. Naturalist it might be, but self-rewardingly "real" it surely isn't, and the slow-burning talky scenes of unextraordinary people are more Eric Rohmer than Joe Swanberg.

It is a film of ideas and moral weight, I mean to say, and not just a film about watching people in their native habitat (in fact, the scenes that are most typical of that style - the domestic scenes of Grace and Mason puttering around in their apartment - are the ones that could be snipped out of the film to the least overall damage). At heart, the film dramatises the act of caring for people as a way of caring for oneself: Grace has a healthy basketful of personal problems, that we learn almost entirely inductively, and the way she processes them is by working to make sure that her wards don't suffer the way she did. In effect, she provides the comforting, safe space for them that was not provided for her, and in so doing corrects the world that caused her such pain.

She's a pretty fantastic character altogether, in fact, certainly the most complex and nuanced in the film (frankly, most of the side characters, however detailed and specific their accumulation of surface details, exist mostly to flesh out Grace's personality). Larson does fantastic work bringing out what's there in the script, too, giving a performance light-years beyond any of the unprepossessing acting she's done in films up to this point. Especially since she's acting about acting: every time Grace talks to one of the kids in Short Term 12 (and this is the thing she does most often throughout the film), she is playing a role for them, while obliged to hide the feelings that their problems rouse in her, and Larson is obliged to play both of this layers, simultaneously, throughout the whole film, letting just enough leak out that we in the audience can understand what's going on in her head, but not so much that we can't understand how the rest of the cast doesn't pick up on it. It is delicate and subtle, and though I wish the script didn't start to turn so literal towards the end, the fact remains that Cretton has given Larson quite a lot of room to inhabit the role in very small gestures and unfussy line readings. There's no doubt that Grace, and Larson's portrayal of her, is the best part of the film's naturalist leanings: she's such a complete person that simply watching her exist is fascinating and enthralling.

In fact, the most surprising thing to me about Short Term 12 is how thoroughly watchable it turns out to be. A low-key character study about how people hardly old enough to qualify as adults themselves engage with troubled teens and help them feel better about the shitty hand they were dealt sounds like the very definition of a "take your medicine" movie, but the overriding tone of the film is so relaxed and conversational, and its moral arguments presented so simply and cleanly, that it never feels hectoring, or messagey, or Earnest and Important. It's appealingly people-driven, assuming that watching decent human beings strive to be their best selves is inherently interesting and worthwhile. And wonder of wonders, that turns out to be exactly the case.

8/10

Thứ Năm, 19 tháng 9, 2013

TIM AT TFE: WHITHER PIXAR?

This week's essay plaintive whine: what is going on at Pixar Animation Studios, and why?

Thứ Tư, 18 tháng 9, 2013

ALFONSO CUARÓN: A LITTLE PRINCESS (1995)

A Little Princess is, I guess, significant in that it ushered hot new Mexican director Alfonso Cuarón into Hollywood filmmaking out of nowhere, in 1995 (Sólo con tu pareja, his only previous feature, had screened at Toronto and made a splash, but never received U.S. distribution until 2006). But to me it is far more significant in that it was the first time that Emmanuel Lubezki lost a Best Cinematography Oscar, and it's one of only two times that's happened that it can be even plausibly argued that justice was served (John Toll won for Braveheart).* The film still looks like everything good and holy and right, you understand; the Lubezki of big ideas and dramatically unsound execution who shot Sólo con tu pareja - I have seen nothing else that he shot prior to 1995 - is replaced as though by a fairy changeling with the Lubezki who can crap out delicate shadows and dreamscape sunbeams for Terrence Malick as easily as you or I could take an out-of-focus, mis-framed selfie. I do not know what A Little Princess without Lubezki would be like, but I can guarantee that I don't want it, any more than I want a version The Tree of Life without the cinematographer's psychologically indicative natural lighting and shallow focus.

But there will be time enough to praise Lubezki later on, and I'd really hate to bury the important part; aye, even more important than being drop-dead gorgeous. There are many gorgeous films. What sets A Little Princess apart isn't that it's gorgeous, but that it's one of the very best children's movies of the past quarter-century, during which time that genre has become especially endangered by a noxious cloud of fart jokes and pop culture parody. A brilliant year for children's movies, '95 was, seeing the release of Babe and Toy Story as well, though it's worth pointing out that A Little Princess, uniquely among the three, is centered on the person of a child, and largely takes place within the world as it is seen and understood by children. It takes this mission with uncompromising gravity, and I think you'd have to go all the way back to E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial before you hit a movie that was so unyieldingly told through an entirely child-oriented aesthetic, even in the scenes where no children are present.

The main child of the film is one Sara Crewe (Liesel Matthews), around ten years old in 1914, when her father (Liam Cunningham) joins the British Army to fight the good fight and, in the process, must leave behind his land in India for the moment. As he heads off to fight in the blood-soaked mud of Europe, he leaves Sara behind at the girls' school in New York where her late mother was taught, in the one completely unnecessary shift out of many largely invisible changes screenwriters Richard LaGravenese and Elizabeth Chandler make to Frances Hodgson Burnett's screenplay, which more sensibly set the action in London (and during the Boer War, a change that seems much more appropriate for several reasons, beginning with the "so, you wanna teach your kids all about the Boer War?" one).

At Miss Minchin's Seminary for Girls, Sara immediately gets on the bad side of the thoroughly unpleasant Miss Minchin the Elder (Eleanor Bron, unimprovably mixing icy cruelty with a softer, family-friendly lack of fangs), who smiles her insincere smile and treats the girl with saccharine pleasantness on account of Captain Crewe's considerable reservoir of money. The one primary point of conflict between the two lies in Sara's love of storytelling, gathering all the girls around her at night to tell snippets of the Ramayana and thoroughly offending Miss Minchin's starchy belief that young girls of proper society should only be exposed to bland stories that will teach them useful facts about daily life, not messy fantasies of monsters and god-warriors.

The situation breaks when Captain Crewe is mistakenly reported dead, his considerable assets seized on the spot by the British government. Just like that, Sara's only remaining value to Miss Minchin is as a vehicle for demonstrating her exhaustive sense of charity, which includes dumping the girl in a bare attic room next to the school's other lost soul, African-American servant girl Becky (Vanessa Lee Chester), and threatening to throw the girl out on the street the very instant that she opens her mouth about the fantastic nonsense that has been such a constant source of delight to all the school's other inhabitants, except for the jealous bully Lavinia (Taylor Fry).

I am told that this story takes most of its cues from the 1939 adaptation of the novel starring Shirley Temple, which I have not seen, though it doesn't take much imagination to guess what this material might play like as a Temple vehicle, and I am thoroughly overjoyed to say that the Cuarón film is not that. There's no way to completely exorcise corny sentimentality from material like this, especially with a second half as lustfully attached to melodramatic contrivances involving amnesia and conveniently-situated neighbors, but with Cuarón guiding Matthews to a performance that isn't really "cute" as such, and even has just a tinge of shrill stubbornness that can become just marginally annoying, this film's Sara has texture and solidity that a more unthinking embrace of the film's "every girl is a princess" message would have lost track of; as a result, that same exact message feels earned instead of trite, particularly when Matthews's invocation of it during a climactic rant feels more like a desperate girl trying to cling to something true and meaningful, instead of an adorable child offering up a life lesson to a cartoonishly grumpy old grown-up. Not every moment of child acting lands: frequently, Matthews allows giant-eyed breathiness to stand in for sincerity, and she's very much the best of young cast. But often enough, and always at the right moments, the director and the actor find a way to evoke enthusiasm and passion in a way that reads honestly, and we get utterly wonderful moments of emotional purity like the scene where Sara (not yet a pariah) offers up to one of the other girls a parable about how mothers go to heaven to become angels.

Having thus avoided the most obvious trap of just being preciously glib, A Little Princess ends up being a surprisingly rich and mature exploration of how the act of storytelling can be used as both a means of self-expression and a tool for survival; it is about considering one's own life as an act of narrative in a manner suggestive of Neil Gaiman (whose epic treatise on the subject, The Sandman, was in the last year of its 75-issue run at this time), though in a much friendlier and less esoteric register. In order to comprehend her frequently miserable experience, Sara is impelled to cast her own existence in literary terms, and to use the knowledge of what a storybook character would do to inform what she herself does in "reality". Thus we arrive at a film celebrating ingenuity and self-reliance while opening itself up to a meta-reading: as Sara, thinking of herself as a real person, looks to fiction for guidance and insight, so the film's ideal audience (certainly young, probably female) is invited to look to the fictional Sara for the same reasons.

Complex and wonderful stuff, and Cuarón and a terrific team of collaborators brought it all to life in profoundly inviting way, making a thoroughly fictitious 1914 (you can almost see the soundstage walls) that feels like the perfect place for a nice, never-too-dangerous bedtime story to take place. Production designer Bo Welch and costume designer Judianna Makovsky contribute an obvious backdrop of fairytale-realist period trappings done up in the director's chosen palette of varying greens (he noted, astutely, that it's the most emotionally variable color: comforting, natural, wild, nauseous, sterile, all as needed, and all found somewhere in the film's palette), and the hair and make-up team responsible for making Miss Minchin and her sister Amelia (Rusty Schwimmer) look like comic book echoes of each other, with the same little Bride of Frankenstein hair streak and all, deserves all the praise we can shovel their way for creating a pair of antagonists who set off the vaguely surreal settings just so.

Lubezki himself is limited mostly to glossing over all this with a patina of golden-green lighting that gives it all a slightly aged, otherworldly feel; the freewheeling camera movements of his very best work with Cuarón is found only in a smattering of tracking shots (though one - a lateral track along the dinner table where all the girls are gathered - is a perfect little gesture of scene-setting that unites the characters invisibly but firmly), and the whole thing is very much the work of a great talent doing things that any great talent could have. That's not quite as true of Cuarón's direction; if every random great director could do this kind of work imbuing the lives of children with gravity without wearily solemnizing them, there wouldn't be such a dearth of truly masterful children's cinema, and A Little Princess might not seem like such a singular achievement. Might. The fact remains, despite a cluster of odd adaptation choices and clumsy moments of acting, this is a hugely rewarding fable for young people and their attendant grown-ups, and while "a great family filmmaker" is a phrase used by absolutely no-one to describe the creator of Y tu mamá también, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply.