Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn big ol' ensemble films. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn big ol' ensemble films. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Tư, 20 tháng 5, 2015

PEOPLE COME, PEOPLE GO, NOTHING EVER HAPPENS

A review requested by John Taylor, with thanks for contributing to the Second Quinquennial Antagony & Ecstasy ACS Fundraiser.

Reducing any film to the sum of its Oscar trivia is a filthy habit, but it's also fun and I'm good at it, and Grand Hotel has a real whopper of a piece of trivia associated with it. It's the second of three films to win the Best Picture Oscar and no other awards, which it did at the fifth Academy Awards, given for the awkwardly-shaped year of 1 August, 1931 through 31 July, 1932 (The Broadway Melody, Best Picture #2, and Mutiny on the Bounty, #8, are the other two). But the real point of distinction is that it's the one and only Best Picture winner to have been nominated for absolutely no other Oscars. There's no wholly positive way to spin that, but it does feel kind of fitting in a way - this was the time when the award was still called "Outstanding Production", with more of a connotation of "this is the most impressive act of studio willpower" than "this is the most aesthetically complete and admirable movie". And Grand Hotel is nothing if not an outstanding production, something in which every facet of it is less important than the massiveness of its existence. Grand Hotel is not about anything but the fact that MGM wanted to show off the full range of its resources, and in that regard, it absolutely can be the year's most Outstanding Production even without having the best direction, writing, or acting.

Though even that's missing the point a little; frankly, Grand Hotel does have the best of some of those things, or at least good enough to muscle into the not very mindblowing competition for the 1931-'32 Oscars. I won't way that director Edmund Goulding deserved a slot above King Vidor and Josef von Sternberg, but surely William Absalom Drake's adaptation of his play of Vicki Baum's novel would have been as worthy a writing nominee as the stuffy Arrowsmith. Cedric Gibbons's luscious Art Deco art direction, an extravagant showpiece for MGM's storied set builders, was outright robbed. And in a notably weak Best Actress year, Joan Crawford's failure to land a nomination instead of a pair of slumming theater goddesses doing nothing in particular (though Lynn Fontanne is leagues better than winner Helen Hayes) and an out-to-sea Marie Dressler is fucking baffling as all hell. Except that it's not, because nominating any one member of the Grand Hotel would have been almost impossible to get away with. That, you see, is exactly the point of the production's one-of-a-kind outstandingness.

Grand Hotel is a genre-starter, you see. This was the very first All-Star Cast Extravaganza, with several of MGM's most luminous names given more-or-less equal focus in a series of intertwining subplots filling up the bustling anthill of the classiest hotel in Berlin (inevitably, the shadow of that upstart politician Adolf Hitler, who came to international attention several months after the film's premiere, adds a sense of morbid gloom to the film's depiction of corruption and depravity in Germany for any viewer coming to the film later than 1933). The movie's very own opening credits stress the divine glamor of those stars more than the characters they play, or the story they play them in. Greta Garbo! Joan Crawford! John Barrymore! Lionel Barrymore! Wallace Beery! Lewis Stone! Jean Hersholt! Only about half of those names have any currency with a modern audience, but for a film lover in '32, seeing those names in one place would be their version of The Avengers (Hersholt is Hawkeye). It's hella easy to live in the 21st Century and airily proclaim that Crawford picks up the movie and runs away with it - which I take to be very much the contemporary conventional wisdom about it - but picking favorites is at a certain level entirely contrary to the spirit of the thing, which doesn't make you need to pick favorites. You just get all of them all at once. This is, never forget, an Outstanding Production.

The really impressive thing about Grand Hotel is that even if its goals are transparently those of unabashed gimmickry, it holds up superlatively well. There's only one of these "superstar ensemble" pictures that even arguably betters it, to my eyes, the following year's glorious Dinner at Eight (also by MGM, and with four of the same superstars), which has the benefit of George Cukor, a sturdier director than Goulding, and a more concrete reason for all the actors to appear in one place, beyond "hey, lotsa folks show up at a hotel". Still, while the first may not be exactly the best, it has pleasures galore in its cross-cutting of dignified melodrama anchored by a whole host of people doing sterling work - beyond Crawford's early career highlight, Lionel Barrymore is at his most sensitive and internally-directed here, with only a minimal amount of cartoonish hamming (I am not tremendously fond of the great bulk of his work prior to the full-on old man stage of his career), and John Barrymore is stone-cold serious. Garbo is... not great. Insofar as everybody who loves '30s Hollywood has that one diva to whom they give all their most serious affection and loyalty, Garbo is mine. I don't feel any need to make excuse for loving her career above Crawford's, 98% of the time. But she's on autopilot in Grand Hotel, more than in any other role I can think of. Within just a couple of years, her line "I want to be alone" had hit a critical mass of parodies to prove that this was seen as an iconic work almost immediately, and far be it from me to deny the pop culture of the 1930s its rightful obsessions. But this is the same hurt, tragic Garbo of at least a half-dozen other performances, all of which involve her being more invested and nuanced in her depiction of that hurt, and none of which so dubiously miscast her (here, she plays a ballet dancer, a profession that requires a totally different body shape and way of movement than anything within a mile of Garbo's physical performance). And certainly, none of which require her to make love to a telephone.

Outside of its misuse of a disinterested top-billed star, though, Grand Hotel is a perfect demonstration of why the Hollywood star system persisted so long, and why it still gives such vast pleasure to those of us in its cheering section. This is really and truly a film that bets the farm on the absolute charm of its actors - the script can barely be bothered, listlessly plugging in sturdy but ancient narrative shapes including the destitute baron (John Barrymore) who falls in love with his rich, suicidal mark (Garbo), the innocent stenographer (Crawford) who starts to receive the nastiest kind of attention from a thuggish captain of industry (Beery), the dying man (Lionel Barrymore) spending his last pennies on one chance to experience luxury he's never known. These were musty old chestnuts by 1932, and the film doesn't waste any time on pretending that we're there to be dazzled by the complexity of the plots and the way they interleave. We're showing up to see famous people perfectly inhabit those roles in enormous, loving close-ups and gorgeous lifestyle-porn gowns by MGM's legendary costume designer Adrian. And this is something Grand Hotel overs up by the shovelful, with that top-shelf cast breathing richness and vitality into their well-worn roles. Crawford, with her strikingly modernist and knowing expressions, is, again, the clear best in show, always marginally more wary and withholding than her scene partners in ways that make us desperately crave more information about her. But there's not a wrong foot in the movie, from the clipped brutishness of John Barrymore in his unguarded moments to Stone's weary sternness. Even Garbo's not in any way an active detriment, all my moaning about her performance notwithstanding.

Marshaling this parade of egos presented as demigods on the big screen, all Goulding really has to do is keep the spigot of close-ups and two-shots wide open, and in that respect he triumphs. But it's not fair to pretend that Grand Hotel was a director-proof movie just because it actually totally was a director-proof movie. There are some fascinating shots he carries off, such as the way the hotel's switchboards, used as a narrative framing device, are turned into geometric traps that sneakily imply a more rigid set of structures (aesthetic and social) than the script is quite willing to explore, or the occasional sudden cuts where the characters are dropped into tiny relief against the sprawling reality of the hotel that simply doesn't care about their individually pitiable tales. Cinematographer William H. Daniels gets to play around with Expressionist lighting, or at least the closest MGM's glossy house style would permit him to get to Expressionist lighting, guiding the mood more than is immediately obvious through canny manipulations of the focus and shadow in the back of shots.

It is, all told, a tremendously sturdy, thoroughly unimaginative, and massively entrancing sample of the early-'30s Hollywood machine doing everything exactly right in the creation of gratifying entertainment. It's too sober-minded to qualify as escapism, and infinitely too proud of its foregrounded desire to seduce the audience to be mistaken for high art. I cannot call it a perfect studio film; a perfect studio film would have a mechanically flawless screenplay, not a tossed-off basketful of scenarios that it cares about even less than we do. But it is the perfect Grand Hotel, one of classic Hollywood's most elegant truffles. Sure, it's still empty calories, but every gram of it reveals great, methodical craftsmanship.

Thứ Hai, 4 tháng 5, 2015

BACK WITH AVENGEANCE

During the press tour for Avengers: Age of Ultron - a press tour marked by an uncommon number of wrong turns by the participants - writer-director Joss Whedon admitted almost in so many words that making the film was exhausting and no fun and he wasn't happy with the final product. It helps to know that, but it's easy to guess something like that was the case: more than any other film yet made in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, an eleven-film franchise marked above all by the commercial slickness and uniformity of its products, Age of Ultron feels helplessly obligatory and formulaic.

In the three years since The Avengers came out and made utterly silly amounts of money, the studio's "Phase 2" of movies have all tried to push into new territory, even if it's all within the limits of the most obviously corporatised filmmaking in contemporary Hollywood: Iron Man 3 dug down into character details and flashed some acerbic, Shane Black flair, and 2014's one-two punch of Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy saw the franchise at its most seriously consequential and then its most beguilingly sugary and breezy, ending in what could easily be defended as its two most self-contained, satisfying achievements since it kicked off. Even poor Thor: The Dark World tried to expand the scale and grandeur of the series' universe, no matter how badly it fumbled every aspect of carrying out that task. And here's Age of Ultron, and it is the most disappointing thing possible after that run of four movies: it's a straight-up retread, soullessly grinding its way through most of the exact same things that worked before in the hope that they'll work again, only all of the individual elements were more novel and more impressively achieved three years ago. There's too much of Whedon's personality bleeding through, in good ways and bad, to write it off as an impersonal non-effort, but damn, it does manage to feel perfunctory.

The film begins in medias res, which is probably the best thing it ever does; re-introducing the six-hero team of the Avengers by showing them as the exemplars of self-consciously iconic kinetic moviemaking. Honestly, get as far as the end of this sequence, and Age of Ultron seems to be setting itself up to be a much better work of popcorn cinema than the original - while the "Avengers diving across the screen in slow-motion" shot heavily pimped in the trailers isn't a patch on the "360° around the Avengers" shot heavily pimped in the trailers for the original, there's no other respect in which sequence isn't an improvement on all the action in The Avengers: the CG-aided long takes are wonderfully woven through the action and the location, the way that the characters' zingy quips punctuate the action feels perfectly like the way dialogue and violence interact in a comic book, and the characters are each showcased doing something specific and important. I had a better idea of why the archer Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) was even a member of the Avengers within Age of Ultron's first ten minutes than after the whole running time of the last movie.

It's not true that the film never matches this moment again, though this is absolutely the peak as far as action goes. The lack of context for what's going on - and we'll eventually receive an explanation, but not till after it's all over - means that the action really doesn't feel like anything but raw, untethered spectacle, making it hard to care beyond the momentary rush of adrenaline and the sheer pleasure of onscreen momentum. Which, to be sure, I don't regard as a problem. But motivating its action sequences never gets much easier for the film, no matter how much plot it packs them in, and there's nothing to follow that's as impressively mounted or stylistically ambitious (and we're not talking about off-the-charts ambition even in this case). The big sprawling climax, which enormously resembles the big sprawling climax of The Avengers with a paint job on the bad guys and different backgrounds, is clumsily paced and littered with moments for the action to stop to show us the heroes patiently saving civilians - a pointed riposte to the destruction-happy Man of Steel (or at least, the moralistic dialogue that happened around Man of Steel), but one that could be easily handled with about a quarter as many cutaways, which only really serve to inelegantly stomp the film's rhythm to the curb.

But let's back off from the climax. There's a lot of movie to get through before that point, some of it fun, much of it dismayingly samey and forced - Whedon's habitual quips have maybe never, in all of his writing, seem so joylessly fitted into a movie that doesn't quite know what to do with them, and delivered by actors who seem so annoyed at having to speak them (Renner is the only recurring cast member who could even arguably be accused of giving his best performance in his role in this particular entry). The best moments are the quietest, character-driven ones; the ones in which Natasha "Black Widow" Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) and Bruce "Hulk" Banner (Mark Ruffalo) fence around their mutual attraction (though there's a tone-deaf scene where she discusses her biological past that's an especially weird choice coming from somebody as proud to declare himself a feminist as Whedon), or the film's obvious, maybe even objectively best scene, where the heroes get drunk in Tony "Iron Man" Stark's (Robert Downey, Jr.) high-tech superbuilding, goof around with casual camaraderie, get into the best dick-measuring contest in any recent movie, and make terrible decisions. These parts of the film are marvelous. The parts that aren't are the ones where the actual plot tries to do anything, with Stark making one of those terrible decisions, and creating an unbeatable sentient robot named Ultron (voiced and motion-performed by James Spader), who does what super-intelligent movie robots will do, and decide that to preserve peace and harmony, he must destroy all humans.

Everything to do with that whole deal is just a pointless retread of The Avengers, with Spader's sarcastic, self-aware performance making for a great character - it's the best performance in the film - and yet another in the long line of lousy Marvel movie villains whose plots are too convoluted and huge and generic to take seriously or remember clearly. The film doesn't manage to take advantage of the one strength afforded by the somewhat cumbersome "shared universe" conceit, and draw on our awareness of how the characters have changed and grown in their own movies - Stark, Romanoff, and Steve "Captain America" Rogers (Chris Evans) don't seem nearly as nuanced or complex as they did the last time we saw any of them, and they don't seem particularly interesting purely in reference to this film: Stark gets the first two-thirds of a really deep and dark character arc that the movie pointedly fails to follow through on. The film's new characters, twins Pietro (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) are inconsistent and plain, with motivations that vanish three-quarters of the way through the film, and comically awful Eastern European accents preventing either actor from doing much of interest with the roles. The film cares not a whit for psychology, even though it keeps pantomiming as though it does; it mostly wants to fit colorful personalities into situations and fights that have come to feel increasingly routine as we see the same basic plot beats from every other Marvel movie play out (I swear to God: I don't care how bland or ineffective it might be, I want just one of these movies to end with a final setpiece that doesn't take place in the sky).

I have to say one thing in the film's favor, though: it didn't really strike me as overstuffed - at least, it didn't feel like it had the wrong running time. Perhaps the wrong things were pulled out to carve it down, leaving such obviously dangling plot threads as basically everything surround Thor (Chris Hemsworth), easily the character left with the least to do in this film, as he busily disappears for what feels like a whole act to go set up his next film. Due in 2017, because try as one might, it's hard not to have the whole ungainly mess of upcoming Marvel releases lingering on one's brain. For example, the whole time I was watching Age of Ultron, I kept thinking about how much I wished it would just skip ahead to next summer's Captain America: Civil War already, which feels like its going to be consequential and character-driven in all the exact ways that Age of Ultron signally isn't. It's just one more damn world-ending plot foiled by characters doing exactly what we expect them to do in action sequences that are shot, edited, and scored like a whole bunch of other action sequences in the last few years, only with more of a palpable sense of exhaustion. It's a thoroughly competent movie, sure; but its competence is so routine and mechanical as to leave the thing overwhelmingly dull.

6/10

Thứ Tư, 21 tháng 1, 2015

GONE TO POT

Comparing Paul Thomas Anderson's adaptation of Thomas Pynchon's Inherent Vice - the first Pynchon novel to be filmed, no less - with the Coen brothers' The Big Lebowski is absolutely the laziest conceivable opening gambit the reviewer of the former film could engage in, but it has the merit of being inevitable. Both films are shaggy mysteries which are more interested in capturing a vibe than in carefully laying out the actual mechanics of the plot (though neither is insoluble, despite Inherent Vice having already picked up that reputation); both are stoner comedies for sober people; both are set in southern California. Both pivot on characters whose attitude towards life, rules, the Establishment, and drug use was forged in the '60s and left them stranded once the '60s ended; The Big Lebowski, set in the early 1990s, plays this for fish-out-of-water comedy, while Inherent Vice, set in 1970, allows a hint of melancholy to pervade its depiction of the death spasms of the counterculture.

The biggest difference between them, and it is the reason I have really bothered comparing them at all, is that at 117 minutes, The Big Lebowski is the longest that its loose-limbed hang-out attitude and laconic comedy can conceivably support (it is, in fact, one of the only Coen films that I think could do with some merciless trimming); whereas Inherent Vice is 148 minutes long, and no. Just no. There's nothing about this film that demand that kind of space and certainly nothing that benefits from it. Anderson hasn't been a particularly disciplined filmmaker at any point in his career - the only one of his films that absolutely cannot be any shorter is Punch-Drunk Love, which also happens to be his only other comedy - but this breaks new ground in dithering around pointlessly.

That being said, the parts of Inherent Vice that work are pretty terrific stuff: Anderson, his cast, and his crew have thrown themselves into the task of recreating their fictitious corner of 1970 Los Angeles with aplomb, resulting in some of the most invitingly tangible sets (designed by David Crank), costumes (Mark Bridges), and even hairpieces of the year: it has the scruffy, organic feeling like some lost corner of America that was permitted to rest unchanging for four decades, until the filmmakers came along to document it. In the lead role of "Doc" Sportello, well-practiced marijuana smoker and surprisingly dogged private eye, Joaquin Phoenix provides a splendid companion piece to his performance in Anderson's last film, The Master, once again capturing a particular moment in the history of American anomie with miraculous precision, this time playing his character's alienation from the mainstream with warmth and self-knowledge rather than as a horrifying blank. As one of the only people to get an appreciable amount of screentime, and certainly the only person for whom that screentime tops one-fifth of the total film, Phoenix's attitude and ability to inhabit the "whatever, man" flow of the befuddling story with its low stakes is the anchor for the viewer to find a way in. And thus he does.

All of which is as much to say: if Inherent Vice was just a simple little shaggy dog story, content to let us chill with Doc and enjoy his worldview, it could be great; even as a detective comedy, it could still be pretty great (The Big Lebowski proves that), with the unkempt storytelling ironically commenting on the complexity of the story and Doc's ability to remain true to himself and his values while being buffeted by social change funneled through this one crime story. It's certainly a solid enough riff on film noir, with its sardonic treatment of sex, its panoply of warped character names, and the procedural narration delivered by one of Doc's buddies, Sortilège (Joanna Newsom), with a twangy lack of urgency that ends up being the film's subtlest joke. But Inherent Vice is not remotely simple, containing two full acts that it doesn't require (for all I know they might kill on the page - I haven't read the book - but the pacing of a novel and the pacing of a film aren't identical, or even comparable), and yo-yoing between characters and situations without stitching them together. Coupled with the fact that the film is a who's who of distracting cameos - Josh Brolin and Owen Wilson have large enough parts to feel like characters, but Reese Witherspoon, Bencio Del Toro, Jena Malone, Martin Short, Maya Rudolph, and Eric Roberts are only some of the people who come in and out so quickly that by the time they're gone, one is still processing that they showed up in the first place - Inherent Vice never feels like more than a collection of individual anecdotes assembled into a narrative framework. Given the story, and especially given the attitude of laid-back disinterest with which the film approaches its story, that's not even an inappropriate strategy for following Doc around, but what it certainly doesn't do is make the two and a half hours feel and swifter. And it kills the sense of comedy; the longer Inherent Vice goes on, the harder it becomes to laugh at what turns out to be a fairly small repertoire of jokes.

Still, the film's charms and strengths are undeniable and they're certainly not very common. The lusciously grainy celluloid cinematography, by Robert Elswit, isn't all that complicated, but the roughness it adds to the film gives it a sense of period-appropriate decay, even though there's nothing about the lighting or framing that necessarily states "this looks like '70s cinematography". The use of music is, unsurprisingly for this director, right on point: a collection of familiar but not overused singer-songwriter pieces that enhance the zoned out feel of being stoned that the movie has such a fun time evoking in such quiet ways. And the dialogue, which I gather to be taken directly from Pynchon in most places, has a snappy bite that draws out some great line deliveries from the whole ensemble, though Brolin, as an irritable cop and sometime antagonist, is pretty undeniably having the most fun chomping his way through the script.

It's all awfully enjoyable, breezy and melancholy and neatly attuned to how culture changes and what happens to the people that get left behind when it does; but none of it is enhanced by the bloated last hour, or the logy overall pace. It's simply not deep enough to justify its own enormousness, and the one thing that a lark like this absolutely cannot survive being is boring; that's exactly what eventually happens to it.

7/10

Thứ Sáu, 9 tháng 1, 2015

MOVIES I MISSED IN 2014: IN A MINER KEY

Pride is, in the first place, an irresistibly nice movie. There's a question to be asked whether that is, in and of itself, its big problem. For it is also a movie set against an extremely non-nice pair of events: the miners' strike of 1984-'85 in Great Britain, and the expanding AIDS crisis. And while the film touches on both of these topics - the miners' strike is the engine driving the plot, after all - it does so awfully gingerly, as though it's terrified to ruin the audience's good time by reminding us of the stakes of its own story. A story this steeped in political activism that's so skittish about the actual stuff of politics can't help but be frustrating; but genial British comedies have been trivialising the causes and consequences of the strike for years now. So if nothing else, Pride is in good company.

More importantly, the film's a genuinely effective crowd-pleaser of a sort that the UK film industry used to crank out with great regularity back in the '90s and early '00s, and isn't really any more. And the crowd it's pleasing isn't one that wants a nuanced discussion of class issues under Thatcher, or would know what to do with one if it had been provided in this form. So judging the film according to its own goals, it's a pretty clear-cut success across the board: full of well-etched characters who feel like "types" but are also fully-realised as people with individual personalities and identities, able to deftly mix light comedy, bawdy jokes, and sobriety without giving the viewer tonal whiplash. And even in its rather cagey appropriation of only the bits of politics and history it feels comfortable engaging with, it does the admirable and necessary work of calling attention to a rather special and unique political alliance.

That alliance being between Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners, the brainchild of Mark Ashton (Ben Schnetzer), gay activist and Communist (the latter fact quietly removed from the movie), and the miners' union in Onllwyn, Wales. The film simplifies the history a bit in the interest of keeping things focused more on the characters involved, which is quite a range of humanity played by one of the best casts assembled in 2014. Among the LGBT activists, we find shy, closted 20-year-old virgin Joe (George McKay) - the one entirely fictional character in the cast - middle-aged couple Jonathan (Dominic West) and Gethin (Andrew Scott), and punk Steph (Faye Marsay); among the miners and the townsfolk, the ebullient Hefina (Imelda Staunton), enthusiastic Siân (Jessica Gunning), taciturn wiseman Cliff (Bill Nighy), and the delightfully awkward Dai, who ends up the bumbling but wholly well-meaning ambassador between LGSM and the miners, and is played to quiet, earnest perfection by Paddy Considine, who I'd just barely be willing to give best in show honors to, slightly edging out Schnetzer. But everybody's great, and I've really just cherry-picked some new and established names; in point of fact, Pride includes a solid two-dozen characters of greater or lesser importance who linger in the memory, fleshing out the village with people who make lasting impression with just a few minutes to sketch in a backstory and feelings about this unprecedented turn of events, and giving all of the activists individual histories within the general overlap that unites them all, that sneak out as we observe them rather than being baldly stated.

Writer Stephen Beresford and director Matthew Warchus collide their two groups with unexpected gentleness; other than a token bigot family, and some late-coming complications, there's very little "rural blue-collar men mistrust The Gays" drama that would seem to be a natural fit for a film like this, and cheers to that. It only deprives the film of easy jokes, and forces it instead to explore more delicate dynamics of how people behave in new situations, what choices they make as to how to present themselves, and the judgments they make (or don't) about other people's merits. This is sweetened by a predominately jokey, broad tone in the beginning, mostly carried by the ladies of the village and their blowsy fascination with this new breed of man that isn't sullen, grunting, and coated in coal dust; but for all that the selling point of Pride is it genial facility with quips, what sticks about it is the basic decency of all the people within it, and how happily it invites us to enjoy watching their decency unfold.

That's not all there is to it, I suppose. It's all that it really needs; it's more than a lot of the stand-issue working class Britcom, with its population of cartoon eccentrics, is able to claim. It's certainly what's most satisfying about the film; though I am sure that there's an audience, and not a small one, that finds its depiction of the mid-'80s evolution of gay political engagement in Britain to be bracing and smart rather than needlessly restrained (I doubt that there's an audience that could be entirely happy with the tossed-off treatment of the mining strike, but it's a big world). At any rate, the idea that basically good people can team up with other basically good people to make the world a basically better place is Pride's animating ethos, and it's given a lot of warm life by this treatment.

It's hardly a challenging or adventurous piece of filmmaking. The bright cinematography, by Tat Radcliffe, nimbly captures the colors and feeling of the film's re-creation of the 1980s (Charlotte Walter's costumes are splendid in this regard), and there are some terrific wide shots that depict Onllwyn with a grounded sense that keeps the film steady and true, but it's mostly a simple, conservative aesthetic. There are moments where Christopher Nightingale's score tries a bit too hard to tell us exactly what to feel, and they tend to come at the worst possible moments, but that's probably the film's biggest misstep (outside of a corny, hacky scene where the gays teach the straights how to Dance!!!!!). And for every mildly bad moment, there's a great moment to offset it: the coming to terms between a gay man and his long-estranged mother, done almost wordlessly; the nuances of staging and performance that let us know that one character learns he has AIDS without needing to stop the drama cold to clarify it; the giddy joy a bunch of old ladies feel upon finding gay porn.

The film could go deeper into its subject; the film could be more honest about the factual events it chooses to depict. These are givens, with mainstream film treatments of history. But within its limits, it's tremendously perceptive and warm and good-humored, and with a mix of genre and topic that seem tailor-maded for shtick, that's a pretty terrific achievement.

8/10

Thứ Ba, 28 tháng 10, 2014

HOLLYWOOD CENTURY, 1989: In which I wanted a Ron Howard picture in the series, dammit, and this is the one I picked

The post title says it all, really. Ron Howard is an important Hollywood director, and I felt that I had to include him; but there was no reason I could come up with for any individual title in his filmography. 1989 had no other compelling contenders, plus I had never seen the director's film Parenthood from that year, which was a plus.

Forgive the ungainly backstage ruminations on how I assembled the Hollywood Century schedule, but I share it now, of all times for a reason. That reason being that Ron Howard's films, and the branch of studio filmmaking they represent, are characterised above all things by how little there is to say or think about them. They are purposefully and aggressively non-cinema: mass consumables which have already done the work of digesting themselves, so that you the viewer are able to sit comfortably and have all the hard work of watching a movie done for you. Sometimes, the individual components are all working perfectly, alone and in tandem, and you get Apollo 13. The rest of the time...

This is not to say that Parenthood is a "bad" movie. It is the kind of movie specifically designed so that it can never possibly be "bad". It is, on the contrary, entirely "proficient" in a way that is above all things safe, friendly, and appealing to a mass audience entirely by virtue of presenting it with concepts that it expects us to happily nod in agreement with - oh, that's so true. And to dress this up in a kind of deliberate un-aesthetic with everything lit to be bright and flat, framed in a combination of two-shots and close-ups that communicate only that this character is now looking in this direction. Films like this have always been a major part of the Hollywood landscape, though they are almost never remembered well in later years: films that are easy, ostensibly likable cinema, made by talented craftspeople whose job involves making movies cleanly and efficiently, with a deliberate renunciation of any creativity or challenging engagement with its own ideas that might spook the audience. It worked in this case, at least: Parenthood ended up on the list of the ten highest-grossing films of the U.S. domestic box office in 1989, a fate that could not possibly befall an adult-targeting ensemble comedy in the cinematic landscape of 25 years later.

Now, you perhaps caught that "ostensibly likable" up there, because to be honest about it, Parenthood feels to me so non-confrontational, so sand-blasted of difficulties, so goddamn square, that it's a bit dreary and upsetting to watch it. Part of that is the grim spectacle of watching talented actors that one prefers to enjoy blasting past the narrow challenges of a script that requires virtually no effort to play well. Part of it is the relentless middle-class morality: the title gives the game away, but this is a film that understands only domestic family life, and that from an emphatically white, straight, male perspective. And of course, white straight males have perspectives on things, and that is fair and appropriate. But it's not the sort of thing that's going to give you something new and unexpected to gnaw on.

Anyway, Parenthood is a sprawling cross-section of one family's life over a period of months, the Buckmans: first in line are Frank (Jason Robards) and his wife Marilyn (Eileen Ryan), whom he plainly does not regard as anything but his sidekick and accessory. This has long bothered his eldest son Gil (Steve Martin), who has striven to do everything the opposite in his own marriage to Karen (Mary Steenburgen), and to raise their children, Kevin (Jasen Fisher), Taylor (Alisan Porter), and Justin (Zachary Lavoy) in the ways least resembling how his father raised him, though he in fact has managed to endow Kevin with all his own crippling neuroses, wrecking the boy's ability to function in school and with peers. Gil's sister, and presumably the oldest of the Buckman children, is Helen (Dianne Wiest), divorced and struggling to raise her sexually active teen daughter Julie (Martha Plimpton) and silent pubescent son Garry (Joaquin Phoenix, in his final performance credited as "Leaf"). Their other sister, Susan (Harley Jane Kozak) is a schoolteacher married to a brilliant but inhumane neuroscientist, Nathan (Rick Moranis), who insists on raising their daughter, Patty (Ivyann Schwann) to be more literate and mathematically inclinced and intelligent than other children, at the cost of her social skills. Last is youngest brother Larry (Tom Hulce), a shiftless gambling addict and schemer who has just come back into the family's life with an unexpected son of his own, Cool (Alex Burrall), and a need for lodging that sends the family's nonagenarian grandmother (Helen Shaw) to live with Gil and Karen, while Frank and Marilyn take care of Cool and Frank over-indulges his favorite son.

That's a whole lot of people just at the level of laying out the scenario, so it's no surprise at all when Parenthood drops the ball: the subplot revolving around Susan, Nathan, and Patty is clearly the one that engages Howard and his co-writers Lowell Ganz & Babaloo Mandel the least, and every time the focus shifts back over to them, the film almost visibly sags with boredom. Nor does it help that this is the only subplot that cares more about the Buckman spouse than the Buckman - it's clearly just something wedged in because Rick Moranis was available, and it gave Rick Moranis something active to do, even if it is not of the smallest interest to watch it in the context of the rest of the film's stories.

And for something to be disinteresting in the overall context of Parenthood is a damning insult, since the movie as a whole is pretty damn disinteresting. The situations are all so calculated in their broadness, so predictable not just in terms of the actual events that will happen but also the film's opinion on them, it's not surprising in the least that the film was adapted into a television show - not once, but twice (the former replacing Joaquin Phoenix with Leonardo DiCaprio, a crossing of future A-list Gen-X actors that is, in retrospect, the most amazing thing about the entirety of the Parenthood franchise). It's already as comforting as a sitcom in film form, it would seem a shame not to try and retrofit it for the small screen, where it's low-key story beats and generically tidy visuals already long to reside.

Nor is it simply predictable at the macro level of story and character arcs, but in the way it sells and foreshadows its gags: the scene where we meet Nathan and Susan has them talking to their offscreen daughter about her grades, in language that suggests a sullen pre-teen. But Howard and cinematographer Donald McAlpine and editors Daniel Hanley and Mike Hill are so conspciuously keeping Patty offscreen, calling our attention to how awkwardly inorganic the camera angles are individually and together, so that we just know that we're being set up for a comic twist, and having figured that out, it's pretty fucking easy to suppose what the twist might be. Same thing with one of the movie's signature moments, when there's a black-out that takes just long enough to resolve that it's pretty clear that something embarrassing and/or incriminating is going to be waiting for us when the lights come back (sidebar: the film's weirded-out fascination with the thought that "WHOA a middle-aged divorcee would have something like a vibrator?" is hands-down the part that pissed me off the most, though this may be as much a factor of its age as its masculine worldview).

These are not flaws. I mean, they are flaws, terrible flaws that make the film a chore to watch, but they're not mistakes. This is exactly the way Howard & Co. want Parenthood to function: it rewards us for being so smart that we can see where it's going, and then we feel better about agreeing with its observations. This is the notion, anyway; privately, there's not much I hate more than a comedy that announces its punchlines in advance, but in this I understand that I'm at odds with a huge portion of the American comedy-consuming populace.

With its humor and its conflicts so exactingly and suffocatingly plotted out, all that Parenthood has to fall back on its ensemble, with far more talented people that can possibly be boring to watch, even when they are saddled with such utterly meaningless roles as Moranis. And this is, I concede, a genuine pleasure the film offers. The only person who is consistently operating a higher level than the film requires is Wiest, which is of course no surprise. She takes plenty of easy, obvious moments and manages to do both the expected, sitcommy thing and find the character truth underneath it; the showpiece scene is certainly when she's going through a bundle of dirty photographs her daughter took, and responding to them with tearful sarcasm that burns a lot more than the big tragicomic notes of the writing demand. A career highlight? No. Worthy of the Oscar nomination she got? Not really. But it's more rewarding than it ought to be, and that counts for something.

Nobody else in the cast is pushing quite that hard, and all of them allow themselves to do the lazy thing at least once or twice, but for most of the ensemble, it's possible to pull out at least one or two scenes where they're really soaring, and it's not always in the obvious gimme scenes (every important character in the film has at least one of those). I would never, ever claim that the film is worth watching on the strength of talented people passing easy tests, but it's the thing that makes the film pleasurable on any level whatsoever while you're watching it. It's the whole competence thing again: just like watching a man with McAlpine's skills light a generic "big suburban house" set, or listening to Randy Newman's perfectly ordinary score and his bouncy light pop number "I Love to See You Smile", perhaps the exact point at which he began to sacrifice his identity as an angry quipster and social observer (it feels, in all ways, like a weaker dry run for "You've Got a Friend in Me", six years later). Parenthood is a feature-length exercise in watching people doing things that do not tax them, in the service of lessons that do not tax us. It is a profoundly, exaggeratedly relaxing film, even as it claims to be investigating the rough, befuddling issues of modern families. Reducing messy reality to the stuff of frivolous, audience-pleasing foam: this is Hollywood filmmaking, and Parenthood is an unusually pure example from the very heart of the period when it was at its most refined.

Elsewhere in American cinema in 1989
-The Biggest Fucking Summer Ever features such major movies as Batman, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Ghostbusters II, Lethal Weapon 2, and Friday the 13th, Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan
-Lightyears away from all that popcorn escapism, but sharing space in the same multiplexes, Spike Lee releases the radical exploration of American race relations, Do the Right Thing
-The Wizard makes a long-form narrative out of a video game ad

Elsewhere in world cinema in 1989
-John Woo, already a major name in Hong Kong's action industry since 1986's A Better Tomorrow, has his first critical hit in the West with The Killer
-British shit-stirrer Peter Greenaway comes as close as he ever will to popular success with The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover
-Hou Hsiao-Hsien's A City of Sadness wins the top prize at the Venice film festival, pushing Taiwanese cinema to mainstream attention

Chủ Nhật, 19 tháng 10, 2014

CHICAGO INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL '14: OF HORSES AND MEN (BENEDIKT ERLINGSSON, ICELAND / NORWAY / GERMANY)

Screens at CIFF: 10/18 & 10/19
World premiere: 28 August, 2013, general release in Iceland

From its 2013 release in its native Iceland all the way to its present international festival run, the pitch for writer-director Benedikt Erlingsson's terrific debut feature Of Horses and Men (the original Iclandic title, which is universes better in its tongue-warming poetry, is Hross í oss) has focused with pitbull-like intensity on one single moment in the film: come for the horses fucking, stay for the horses fucking. And, more to the point, horses fucking while one of them is being ridden by a human who looks positively dismal at realising that he has just gotten wrapped up in the worst three-way ever.

The reasons for focusing on that scene, from a marketing standpoint, are beyond obvious, but it does the film a great disservice to reduce it to its most prurient elements. If, indeed, it's accurate to refer to horse-fucking as "prurient". Beyond its obvious surface elements - including not just equine sexuality, but an ironic relationship to sudden, violent human death, and the kind of dry, warped absurdist comedy that Scandinavian cinema delights in so very much - it's got some surprising tenderness and respect for the physical and emotional delicacy of horse and human alike. Even when that tenderness is expressed in bent moments like a man's insensate jealousy that his prize mare would screw a stallion, or a horse quietly standing over its owner after he's puked himself to death on bootleg hooch.

It's a kind of anthology film, though made entirely by one filmmaker and with a lot more bleeding through of its segments than "anthology film" suggests. The setting is a rural valley in Iceland where all of the gossipy, voyeuristic townsfolk are united in their affection for and reliance on horses (indeed, outside of the purchase of that alcohol the only economic activity we ever see centers on the care, handling, training, and renting of horses), and over the course of the film, we get to meet many of the people in this valley, spread over the course of six short segments (the total running time is around 80 minutes) which introduce us to six individuals in particular. There's master rider Kolbeinn (Ingvar Eggert Sigurðsson), who's so miserably caught in the middle of that iconic sex act; Vernhardur (Steinn Ármann Magnússon), who rides his horse out into the ocean to catch up with the boat where his precious booze awaits; Grimur (Kjartan Ragnarsson), furiously ripping down fences throughout the region until tragedy strikes, and then that tragedy is compounded; Johanna (Sigríður María Egilsdóttir) doggedly working to tame her new mare; Juan (Juan Camillo Roman Estrada), an Spanish tourist whose poor equestrian skills lead him stranded in the middle of nowhere during a snowstorm; and bringing it back home, there's Solveig (Charlotte Bøving), the owner of the stallion that despoiled the honor of that mare in the first place, doing her best to find some kind of human connection in amongst all the horse obsession and caricatured weirdness of the people.

It would be entirely possible to ding the film for being slight: even with as much interconnectivity as the segments have, this is still essentially six short films with a couple of interstitials tying them together, and most of them are structured like jokes, though the punchline is disturbing or tragic as often as it's funny (by which I mean, it's almost always disturbing or tragic, but usually in a blackly comic way). The result is a film that lingers in the mind more as a collection of individual moments than as a single flowing conception of people occupying a space. Those moments are frequently ingenious: among other terrifically-constructed incidents, the film possesses the most quietly mournful scene of horse castration that you have ever seen in a movie. I am absolutely willing to guarantee that.

The film balances a grandiose, almost spiritual bleakness with snitty comedy, and fable-like tales of human cruelty with precise little cameos of singular human lives at their most beautiful. It's a marvelous balancing act that Erlingsson carries out, flying between tones and letting a small amount of information stand in for a great deal of storytelling and character building. The films works by implication rather than exposition, letting the character's behavior stand by itself, with every carefully-chosen shot and even moreso, the smart, frequently less-than-obvious editing by David Alexander Corno, which links moments using a logic that has little to do with explicitly clarifying the story, but instead allows the quirky humor to flourish and draws connections between characters' feelings and perceptions. It is, in fact, a scheme of assembling the movie that treats the humans much the same way as it treats its horses: as figures that need to be described and studied from sideways angles. And that, more than anything, makes this exactly the film the title promises: a study of how humans and animals interact with each other, and not simply a movie about what people think about horses. It's clever, wonderfully complex in ways it doesn't appear at first, and beautifully picturesque on top of it. The film is small and fussily exact, but then again, gems always are.

8/10, though I can easily see it rising up to 9/10 if I'm ever lucky enough to see it again.

Chủ Nhật, 14 tháng 9, 2014

HOLLYWOOD CENTURY, 1976: In which we are mad as hell, and are not going to take it anymore

One of the grandest clichés in the critics toolkit is to refer to a classic work of satire or social commentary as being "ahead of its time", with the passage of years not serving to blunt the impact of a film's satiric insight but to make them seem less like satire at all, and more like docudrama. In truth, I can only think of two movies where this really seems to apply: 1998's The Truman Show, whose excoriation of what was then the new form called "reality television" seemed like fantasy at the time and now feels like something that could happen tomorrow if they figured out a way around the legality, and 1976's Network, in which the gorgeously erudite writer Paddy Chayefsky spun a tale of how the news media at its worst is a whorish sinkhole in which the most wretched and violence impulses of humanity are turned into exploitative nonsense to get you good and bloodlusty before the dish soap and car insurance commercials.

It is very probably the case that there is, at this point, nothing left to say about Network, one of the most beloved and iconic of '70s American films, with its all-star cast (William Holden! Faye Dunaway! Robert Duvall! Peter Finch! Ned Beatty! More than half of whom were Academy Award nominees, and Dunaway and Finch won, on top of it, as did Beatrice Straight in the shortest performance ever honored with Oscar gold), and its glisteningly literate script, possibly the most pridefully written thing in Chayefsky's justly legendary career, and its famous "mad as hell scene", the kind of moment that so perfectly grabs hold of a cultural moment that it remains famous even among people who've never seen the film, even among those who aren't aware what film it's from. If there's anything I can possibly do with Network, it's mostly to point out, somewhat against tradition, that actually director Sidney Lumet and cinematographer Owen Roizman, production designer Philip Rosenberg, and to a smaller degree costumer designer Theoni V. Aldridge and editor Alan Heim, actually did quite a lot to make the film what it is, too. It's not just the Chayefsky show, though I concede that it took me three, four, God knows how many viewings before I'd figured that one out on my own. It definitely has the propulsive dialogue, frequently laid out in exorbitant long patches for which the word "monologue" is insufficient, and spoken with rich, chew élan by actors clearly adoring the experience of saying those words in that order, to feel like the kind of movie where all the film crew wants to do is to keep out of the script's way, and given the primacy of the spoken word in many of the film's most important, memorable scenes, the film crew hasn't necessarily gone out of their way to dissuade us of that notion.

But Lumet was hardly a slouch, and Network is tremendously well-directed film, though frequently in a very small way that doesn't try to pull focus from Chayefsky's fireworks. Sometimes not: the film's most conspicuously "made" scene also happens to be a barnburner, coming late in the film as Beatty's Arthur Jensen, owner of an enormous media conglomerate, confront's Finch's insane newsman Howard Beale, and lays out a new religion of the post-national world of unfettered corporatism. Beatty is framed deep in the middle of a frame so black that you just know that Roizman spent hours studying Gordon Willis before he lit it, flanked by two rows of unearthly green desk lamps, all of it in crystal-clear deep focus, a pathway to Hell that's staged with gorgeously Expressionist flair, and intercut with close-ups of Finch at his clammiest and most most terrified. And just to make sure we got it, the scene later transitions to shots of Beatty illuminated from a hard sidelight and nothing else, rendering him as little more than an insinuating silhouette. No '20s German could have done it any better.

Mostly, though, the visuals in Network are of a subtler, though hardly less crafty or impressive register. It is a film about TV production, and it takes inordinate delight in reminding you of that fact, with its obvious litany of shots that have televisions in the background, at least a few of which have the audacity to stage the main action on those TVs while the activity in the foreground is merely human busywork: the famous early scene where a recently-fired network news anchor Beale announces his intentions to kill himself on air is one example, with the gag (and oh, is it a funny one) being that all the people milling around are so focused on the myriad technical jobs that have to be done every minute to keep a news program running that it takes several aching moments before any of them register what he just said, and the staging and sound mixing mostly trick us into doing the same thing. And then there is the less obvious but even more common trick of staging scenes in offices with giant windows and behind glass partitions and any other way that Rosenberg and Lumet can come up with to suggest to us a world of glass boxes: not everyone in Network is on TV, but everyone is defined by TV, and that leaches out into the world they inhabit, which is frequently and deliberately shot with the flat staging of a '70s TV show on top of everything else.

In other words, no, let us not throw all the credit at Chayefsky, even if he undoubtedly deserves an enormous chunk of it, and Network is his movie if it's any one person's. It is, like all of his best work, driven by ideas, and by people communicating those ideas, and by people using a lot of excess verbiage to specifically not communicate those ideas. I hardly see the need to bother recapping the plot, but for the benefit of those who've never seen it, the short version is that Beale's suicide threat suddenly revives the fortunes of the ailing UBS evening news program, causing old-school newsman Max Schumacher (Holden) a great deal of pissy dismay, and new-school programming whiz kid Diane Christensen (Dunaway) something very close to literal orgasms. The soul of the network, and the sanity of Beale, who is quickly made the centerpiece of an indescribably gaudy revamp of the news, are batted back and forth between these and several other players over the course of two hours, during which Chayefsky gives voice to some of the most acrid, cynical satire that has ever been filmed: nobody in the film comes off as a remotely decent human being besides Schumacher's dumped-on wife (Straight), with even the weary truth-telling that Schumacher indulges in feeling more like resentful sniping and unimaginative defensiveness than Albert Brooks in Broadcast News-style moral wisdom. And the thing that comes off worst of all is the concept of corporations, TV as a business, and turning information into entertainment, with everyone from Communist ideologues to the ranting, fearless mad prophet Beale ultimately giving in and playing the game.

That most of what Chayefsky says is demonstrably true (and, I imagine, was almost as obvious in '76) doesn't stop Network from peering over the edge of the abyss that would make it a ghastly, curdled nightmare of unpleasantness; what does that is how stunningly funny the movie is, something I don't think it gets enough credit for. The man was a damned good writer of elaborate quips and marathon-length putdowns, and the temptation to start rolling through a list of the film's funniest lines is difficult to resist. But he was also in this case blessed with an unusually good cast, full of people who weren't simply able to read his convoluted words and make them feel like thoughts coming out of human heads, but also put a lively, comic spin on them. Dunaway is the best at this, by far: in a great cast, she's the obvious best in show, and while I haven't seen every one of her important performances, I cannot imagine that this isn't the best acting she ever did. Her take on Christensen is as a merciless predator, but far too upbeat and happy to be constantly winning to ever be anything but chipper and charming and pleasant, and the gap between her buzzy, smiling delivery (only a step or two removed from a '30s screwball performance, in places) and the rancidity of what she says and does gives the film a great jolt of absurdist, even manic comic energy. It's her work that shows us how Christensen has replaced her sex drive with a quest to get bigger and bigger ratings; it's her matter-of-factness and easy pragmatism that makes the film's nihilistic final gesture hilarious instead of cruel. Other people are great, of course: seeing Classic Hollywood stalwart Holden in a part that lets him drop so many f-bombs is funny all by itself, and Beatty and Straight's tiny performances are so potent that it never seems even slightly inappropriate that they nabbed awards attention for such limited screentime. But Dunaway shows up, and there's no looking away from her. Can't be done.

Network is so smart, so funny, and so surprisingly believable in its human element, thanks to the cast, that it's easy to overlook some of its really considerable flaws: for me, it lives in the weird space of being a film I absolutely love to watch, and have always thought was overrated. The biggest problem, bar none, is the romantic subplot that brews between Schumacher and Christensen: it offers some great writing and great acting, sure, but it feels so completely at odds with what the film is actually trying to do, and it's hard to square with the characterisation of Christensen seen elsewhere, and it offers up the one place that Chayefsky completely overplays his hand: Schumacher icily deriding Christensen for slotting human beings into clichéd spots in a TV drama, a metaphor he trots out twice. Nothing about Network ever fails to be obvious: as satire, it's a roaring hurricane of outrage about social developments that it obscures not whatsoever. With that being the case, there's simply new good excuse for Chayefsky ever feeling like he has to spell anything out, and when he does - here, a couple of other places - the film suddenly feels very juvenile in its outrage, and not so much thrilling and witty and smart.

Complaining about it's not hard; it holds nothing back, and that leaves some wet, raw patches that almost beg you to poke at them and observe where the film is being crazily undisciplined. But why bother? Network is a pure, primal scream that takes all of the drunken psychic fallout from the '60s, as refracted through an increasingly disgruntled world of Nixon and 'Nam and a worsening economy - the film obligingly does its own job of positioning itself culturally, so we don't have to - and to hem it in any would be to blunt that scream to an unacceptable degree. Sometimes, satire needs to be cunning and deadly to be its best self; sometimes, it just needs to be angry, so fucking angry, with just enough humor to make the medicine go down. Network rages, but there's poetry to the words and and elegance to the visuals that make it feel not so blunt and ugly, and that's enough to make it an endlessly rousing, exciting satire, if not always the most perfectly focused and sophisticated.

Elsewhere in American cinema in 1976
-The decade's trend of paranoia thrillers reaches its arguable peak with All the President's Men
-Don Siegel directs John Wayne's final film, the elegaic Western The Shootist
-The Stephen King Movie Machine gets its start with Brian De Palma's direction of a luminous Sissy Spacek in Carrie

Elsewhere in world cinema in 1976
-Moustapha Akkad directs Mohammad, Messenger of God with Anthony Quinn, the first big-budget epic produced in the Muslim world
-Tinto Brass makes perhaps the most famous of all Nazi sexploitation flicks, the Italo/Franco/German Ingrid Thulin vehicle Salon Kitty
-The Brazilian Dona Flor and Her Two Husbands becomes the biggest native hit in that country's box office history, a record it holds for 35 years

Thứ Hai, 8 tháng 9, 2014

HOLLYWOOD CENTURY, 1974: In which all the artistic revolutions in the world don't stop popular things from being popular

It is not uncommon, when people swan about cooing with praise for the New Hollywood Cinema and the exciting American cinema of the 1970s, to act as if the whole of the film industry was engaged in thrilling experiments that met with broad favor from audiences, who for once in history were interested in being challenged and enlightened by extraordinarily bold cinematic voices, till those poopypants George Lucas and Steven Spielberg ruined everything. This is untrue. This, indeed, fucking untrue: while it's the case that movies like The Godfather and even The Exorcist would surely never be such Zeitgeist-defining megahits in the 2010s (or the 2000s, or the 1990s...), and this is a sorry reflection on later generations of filmgoers, it's also the case that The Poseidon Adventure plausibly could be. And it was right up there on the top of the pile in 1972, right alongside The Godfather. The simple fact is that the movies we now heap money upon, as a culture (effects-driven action films with simple, cookie-cutter storytelling impulses and deliberately shallow one-trait characters), are also the movies that our parents and grandparents did. Only the effects have changed, while the traits enjoyed by the characters, largely, have not. When brainy, adult-themed dramas do well, it's always an exception, not a trend, and pretending that every Joe and Jane Moviegoer in the '70s was three-quarters Film Comment critic does nobody any good. It's not like the $307 million worth of Star Wars viewers in its initial release were being marched into theaters at gunpoint.

So back we go to The Poseidon Adventure, a movie that saved 20th Century Fox from extinction, and made veteran spectacle producer Irwin Allen all sorts of fun new ideas for how he could extend that film's salient characteristics and extraordinary success into film after film after film. It's certainly not that Allen invented the disaster film; Universal's Airport, in 1970, is what really kicked off that decade's iconic vogue for the genre, and there's never been a truly protracted stretch of time without a single major disaster picture of some extraction (for it is a genre that can cover many kinds of stories) in America since the 1930s.

But Allen machined the disaster film into a smooth, easily-reproduced formula; Allen perfected the "all-star ensemble cast" variant of the disaster film; Allen drove the disaster film to its greatest heights for a brief but intense span when many people and studios tried to compete with Allen. Nobody could out-Allen Allen; his films were the biggest of the big until suddenly and shockingly, they weren't. And Irwin Allen was never bigger than in 1974, when he produced The Towering Inferno, the second-highest-grossing movie of the year when the disaster movie was at its pinnacle (Earthquake and Airport 1975 also landed in the domestic box office top 10). Allen and the two studios collaborating to make the film (Hollywood's very first joint production between two majors), 20th Century Fox & Warner Bros., even managed to haul the film up to a Best Picture Oscar nomination. One which probably would have otherwise gone to Best Director nominee John Cassavetes's A Woman Under the Influence, because the Oscars were also the Oscars in the '70s, even though they sometimes pretended not to be.

The Towering Inferno is pretty broadly regarded as the best of Allen's disaster movie cycle; I absolutely do not find this to be the case. Not with The Poseidon Adventure sitting right there: for The Poseidon Adventure has a cast generally given towards campier, more excessive performances. And The Poseidon Adventure has a more outwardly fantastic premise, which makes it both harder to nitpick logical holes and factual inaccuracies, and easier to watch its life-destroying menace with a spirit of jolly escapism. The Poseidon Adventure, most importantly, is 117 minutes long, and The Towering Inferno is two hours and forty-four minutes and some. It requires maybe around half of that, and the rest is all the most vicious kind of padding. The film only needs that insufferable running time to give subplots to the huge number of more or less famous people in the cast, and while it wouldn't be an Irwin Allen joint without a mixture of hot commodities, new starlets whose career never quite turned out, and well-known Old Hollywood stars who could be gotten for cheap, it's damn hard to mount any argument that their presence serves any narrative or emotional function. Presumably, they exist for us to have a host of potential victims to root for and fear for; in practice, it's just that many more trite stock characters to keep track of amongst the state-of-the-art destruction porn cumshots.

Really, it's not entirely fair to the characters, nor to Stirling Silliphant for taking on the impossible task of writing them (he adapted not one, but two books on virtually identical themes: Richard Martin Stern's The Tower, and Thomas N. Scortia & Frank M. Robinson's The Glass Inferno, each of them optioned by one of the collaborating studios). It's just a bloated movie that goes on and on about everything for far too long. Re-watching it,* I was both amazed and discouraged to find that its very best thriller setpiece, involving a man, a woman, and two children agonisingly clambering across a chasm of twisted metal and rebar that used to be a stairwell, takes place before the halfway point; the remainder of the action often as takes place in draggy, overly pacey setpieces that don't demonstrate the filmmakers having any knack for drawing out a sequence to drive the tension up to unendurable levels (Allen directed the action himself, leaving the human material to poor hack John Guillermin, who for his sins was made to direct the epochally terrible Dino De Laurentiis King Kong remake as his very next movie), but instead that they have a sorry tendency to strain those sequences till they pop like an overinflated balloon.

The film takes place in the newly-built (in fact, not quite finished) tallest building in the world, which has naturally been built in San Francisco, one of the most earthquake-prone cities in the New World. But it's not an earthquake that the 135-story Glass Tower needs to be afraid of, but the petty corruption of untrammeled capitalism: to shave a few percentages off the budget, wealthy magnate Jim Duncan (William Holden) has encouraged his contractors to keep to the city's building code, and not to the amped-up demands made by the tower's architect, Doug Roberts (Paul Newman), who wanted to double-down on everything to make absolutely certain that this most outlandish, unprecedented of buildings would be safe from every eventuality. One of those contractors is Duncan's son-in-law Roger Simmons (Richard Chamberlain), who went cheap on the wiring, and wouldn't you just know that the stress of providing power to such an enormous structure needs more than the minimum. Mere hours before the gala near the top of the party at which the building is to be officially opened in front of the leading lights of Frisco, a fire starts in an 81st floor storage closet. And as a dozen or so people who I'm not going to bother recapping, because absolutely none of them matter as anything but fire fodder, go about their business, the fire spreads and spreads, until the fire department is called in, under the leadership of Battalion Chief Mike O'Halloran (Steve McQueen), to fight the most desperate blaze they'll ever know, under the most disastrous circumstances. For as the film passionately informs us, fires in buildings that are more that seven stories high are virtually impossible to fight effectively. It is important - so important! - to not build indulgent buildings that are deranged firetraps. This message has been brought to you by Irwin Allen, getting all bizarrely preachy in the last scene.

Okay, so I'll mention one cast member: legendary dancer and generally suave motherfucker Fred Astaire, playing a charmingly broke conman and winning the sole competitive Oscar nomination of his career for, apparently, not being dead yet.

So I am torn: as pure spectacle, The Towering Inferno is the tops. Glorious modelwork, beautifully-shot fire effects, elaborate sets, some beautiful matte that look just fake enough so that you can really appreciate the craftsmanship, the whole nine yards. It's certainly the most handsome and accomplished of the year's disaster pictures (as far as "handsome" goes, it takes overlooking the horribly dated style of the Glass Tower itself, which looks like an insanely complicated liquor cabinet), and we cannot think for a moment that Allen wasn't committed to showing every penny onscreen. It is top quality eye-candy; and so much of it! I won't go over it again, having already said it once, for I would not want to be like The Towering Inferno. But fucka-lucka-ding-dong, it just goes on and on.

Despite the best efforts of most of those involved, the film never takes off as more than just a remarkable collection of glossy violence: the cast is decent, and McQueen in particular does the best job I could imagine of portraying a man reacting to the worsening situation around him with clarity, strength, and a weary thread of humor, but I have to wonder how fair it is to call this all "acting". By the end of the film's first third, character has fallen by the wayside, and all that's left is meat puppetry, with some talented and some not-as-talented faces occupying space in front of the camera and screaming in terror as needed, but not giving much of an inner life to the proceedings. This doesn't keep some of the more grueling, inventive deaths from feeling simple meanspirited - I am particularly distressed by the way that the ultimately very minor role of a middle-aged adulteress played by Susan Flannery is dumped from the movie (like a lot of disaster films, The Towering Inferno loves its moralising: especially in the respective fates of the repentant Duncan and the craven Simmons). Do we really need to see this rendered in such loving detail? I contend that we do not, for the film doesn't have the strength of character to follow through and present itself as a meditation on arbitrary, horrible, unpredictable death. The Poseidon Adventure, a cartoon adventure, does not suffer from this. The hilariously awful killer bee movie The Swarm, Allen's next picture, is so feverishly inept and divorced from anything resembling the lived experience of genuine humans, that it doesn't suffer from it either. The Towering Inferno is just realistic enough, just plausible enough, that it opens up some dark doors that it has no interest in peering into, and it leaves a sour note over much of the film.

But I concede that it's exhilarating. There's no elegance in the jerry-rigged screenplay, hybridising two books and forced deal with petty dick-measuring by McQueen and Newman that leaves the back half of the film wildly imbalanced (it also forced The Towering Inferno to introduce the technique of "diagonal billing": on the poster and in the credits, McQueen's name comes first read from the left, but Newaman's comes first read from the top). And there's even less interest in the characters it presents, and there's none at all in the visual compositions, so generic that I can't even come up with anything to say about them. But the fire feels horrifyingly real and present; the sight of it destroying actual sets is every bit as impressive, if less poetically shot, as the "burning of Atlanta" sequence from Gone with the Wind; the sound design, though occasionally a touch metallic and hollow, roars and explodes in a way that movies just did not roar and explode in '74 (I frankly prefer it to the more technologically accomplished Earthquake, though of course I have never heard it in the original, rare Sensurround mix); the score by a young John Williams has early feints towards the lush Romanticism of his most iconic scores from the late '70s and early '80s, and gives the film a soaring, passionate feel that it would otherwise totally lack. It has the goods, even if it doesn't really know what to do with them. But that's beside the point. In 1974, this was eye-popping, revolutionary stuff, and the sheer massiveness of the project and its devotion to showing never-before-seen wonders was obviously more than enough for audiences to get a kick out of it, wonky pacing and flat story and all. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.

Elsewhere in American cinema in 1974
-Paramount releases Roman Polanski's acidic thriller of corruption and wickedness, Chinatown
-Martin Scorsese makes his sole "woman's picture", the ode to old Hollywood and new feminism Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
-The fabled BBS Productions releases its final movie, the outraged Vietnam documentary Hearts & Minds

Elsewhere in world cinema in 1974
-The New German Cinema welcomes an important new voice with Wim Wenders's Alice in the Cities
-Lina Wertmüller directs the Marxist parable Swept Away by an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August in Italy
-With an almost limitless freedom to do whatever he wants, John Boorman chooses to put Sean Connery in a red speedo and has a giant flying stone head disparage the penis in the British sci-fi misfire Zardoz

Thứ Tư, 27 tháng 8, 2014

HOLLYWOOD CENTURY, 1970: In which an old curmudgeon jumps in with the young turks, and brazen experiment can also be popular entertainment

The New Hollywood Cinema was largely a young man's game, with most of its leading lights part of the first film school generation. Francis Ford Coppola, Peter Bogdanovich, and Michael Cimino were both born in 1939; Brian De Palma in 1940; Martin Scorsese in 1942; Terrence Malick in 1943; George Lucas and John Milius in 1944; Paul Scharader and Steven Spielberg were the babies, born in 1946. We start to creep older with Warren Beatty (b. 1937), Dennis Hopper (b. 1936), Robert Towne (b. 1934), Bob Rafelson (b. 1933), Robert Benton (b. 1932), Mike Nichols (b. 1931), and eventually we land at editor extraordinaire and underappreciated director Hal Ashby, born in 1929.

There is one great outlier, not just in age, but in experience: his career had begun in industrial short films a full 20 years before the New Hollywood found him and gave him a chance to explode as one of the most creative, challenging filmmakers of his generation - well, not of his generation at all, of course. The '50s and '60s found him cranking out TV episodes by the handful, and out of all the names I have dropped thus far, he'd be the one who, from the vantage point of 1970, was most clearly part of The Establishment; though he'd do more to demolish The Establishment from inside out than any other American auteur in the most radical decade of American cinema. The man I'm referring to is Robert Altman, not quite 45 years old when he dropped a bomb called MASH on the cinematic landscape.

I'm going to get the ugly part out of the way, so we can get on to ignoring it: I'm not terribly fond of MASH. The most impressive things about it were all re-done to better effect and with more sophistication in Altman's later work throughout the decade, and without MASH's conspicuous flaws of snotty, juvenile humor and a real sense of needless cruelty, both of them typified by it's most signally obnoxious scene, a cheap joke built around the sexual humiliation of the movie's most important female character. It's crude and shaggy and smug, absolutely impossible to square with the wide-open appreciation of humanity's warts and strengths in Nashville, or the complex, ghostly depiction of people outside of the mainstream of self-described Civilisation in McCabe & Mrs. Miller (made just a year later!). As far as depictions of sloppy, self-congratulatory masculinity, The Long Goodbye is infinitely more rewarding.

Of course, Altman could have made none of those films without MASH paving his way, both aesthetically and commercially. He got to make the film almost entirely without oversight, while 20th Century Fox was far too busy fussing over the more expensive war films Patton and Tora! Tora! Tora! to give much of a shit about the ramshackle little Korean War comedy that the TV director was making with a bunch of nobody actors from a Ring Lardner, Jr. script that he was constantly changing. And he ran with it as far as he conceivably could, making a movie that broke rules, invented rules, didn't give a shit about the rules, captured a specific moment in the Zeitgeist as perfectly as it could be captured, made a huge pile of money, and gave him a blank check to pursue bizarre personal indulgences for years. Glancing over his filmography, it apparently wasn't until the very visible collapse of his film of Popeye, a full ten years later, that he finally ran out of post-MASH goodwill from the big studio moneymen.

Anyway, having confessed (and felt kind of shameful about it) that I'm no particular fan of the film, I nevertheless admire what it does and what it represents, and I can admit that some of the things I like least about it - it's almost complete shapelessness, for one - are exactly why it made such a tremendous impact in '70. MASH is not just a mere comedy, not even a mere anti-war comedy - which is all the very long-running, equally iconic TV spin-off is, for all that I prefer the small-screen M*A*S*H to its cinematic big brother - but an entirely self-contained anti-Establishment weapon of mass destruction. It's not enough to mock the serious people who were seriously running the war in Vietnam in to a very serious quagmire: the very object that MASH is functions as a "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" to the nice, sensible, moderate people who form the Establishment's backbone. The film is laconic and flippant, but mostly it is pissed: it's just that the anger doesn't express itself through the characters and scenario (as the TV show played it), but through the way that the film has been constructed. The messy, busy, discontinuous aesthetic of the film, and its completely ragged non-plot, are acts of aggression against normalcy, suggesting that the world of '69 and '70 were too colossally fucked-up for normalcy to keep going on. Honestly, of all the major early works in the New Hollywood Cinema, it's probably the most important for this reason, along with Easy Rider: plenty of films argued that "This isn't working" and proposed a change socially; these two films were far and away the most prominent and successful attempts at making the same argument cinematically.

It gets there through somewhat less chemically-induced means: the most immediately noticeable thing about the film, even before it's raggedy, extravagantly European editing scheme (credited solely to Danford B. Greene, though Altman was also in the room), is its legitimately revolutionary sound recording and mixing, the most exciting upheaval in Hollywood sound aesthetic since Howard Hawks realised that movies were funnier and more exciting if people's lines overlapped. The sound, by Bernard Freericks and John Stack, is jaw-dropping, and even the refinements made to it by Altman and others (it reached its apotheosis in Nashville) haven't robbed MASH of its sonic audacity. Offscreen noise is omnipresent, we have to parse two, three, four speakers involved in different conversations simultaneously, and one of the film's most vivid and memorable characters is the P.A. announcer played by David Arkin, who also wrote the pedantic, weird, dreamlike announcements that he speaks in a confused, harried tone, cutting through the action with erratic non sequiturs regularly throughout the movie. Combined with the graceless cutting, which snaps the ends off words and jams scenes together so artlessly that it starts to take on its own internal logic, the overwhelming impression MASH leaves is that of chaos. It's legitimately edgy in a way that most films that more openly court edginess through sex and violence wouldn't know what to do with, suggesting that war, and society, and human life, and the whole damn thing are messy, inexplicable, and confusing, and coming at a moment of such widespread dissatisfaction as America was feeling in the turnover to the 1970s, it's little wonder that the film grabbed the mood of the nation in a big way.

And that, again, does serve to inoculate the film against the easiest criticisms against what look like enormous problems: I could write hundreds of words about the football game that takes up the last quarter of the not-quite two-hour movie, complaining about the abrupt shift of tone, the hash it makes of at least one character's internal logic, and the weird shift from sly, sardonic hang-out comedy to big goofy antics, but of course MASH can come right back at me and demand, well, why not end with a ridiculous comic football scene? The Marx Brothers did it, and they were dangerous cinematic anarchists working in a time of mass dissatisfaction too. And while this doesn't make me like the football sequence any more, it certainly makes it impossible to objectively argue against it.

The broad strokes of the film (structure, sound, tone) are so compelling that it's easy to overlook the smaller elements, though only in a film like this could I use the phrase "smaller elements" and be referring to things like the actors, story, and theme. The first of Altman's films with an enormous ensemble, MASH boasts an extraordinary ensemble: Sally Kellerman, Bud Cort, Michael Murphy, Rene Auberjonois, Tom Skerritt, Robert Duvall, just right off, with the whole thing headed up by Elliott Gould (the closest thing to a big name at the time, on the strength of Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice) and Donald Sutherland as two anachronistically counter-cultural surgeons in a surgical camp in a Korea that Altman was hellbent on convincing us was actually Vietnam (the studio forced him into an opening title card to clarify things, but the intent remains clear). It's a heavily improvised film, setting a standard for Altman films that would continue to the director's death; the result is less a story about character arcs than a collection of events that cause people to react to them, and it's tremendously impressive how well the actors, down to the smallest roles, inhabit their roles with such organic naturalism that it seems right describe it as "people reacting" and not "characters doing X" or "actors doing X". Punctuated with harried, gory scenes of wartime surgery, so the film can give propriety one last smack in the face (it's also the first American studio film with the word "fuck" in its dialogue).

That MASH is so much of its moment doesn't mean that it's aged poorly. In a lot of ways, frankly, it's brash enough and inventive enough to still feel like a work of radicalism, more than 40 years on - except in matters of social mores; the sexism feels all the more disconcerting for how otherwise contemporary the style is. And the iconic theme song "Suicide Is Painless" - written by Altman's teenage son, and oh, how very teenaged it feels - is unabashedly dated. But these are little things: MASH is still a wildly alive, rampaging piece of cinema, whatever my own measured response to it, and essential viewing for anyone who cares even slightly about the history of American cinema. Nothing I nor anyone can say makes it less of a milestone or less of a triumph of getting away with it, right underneath the studio's nose.

Elsewhere in American cinema in 1970
-Love means never having to say you're sorry for ruining an entire generation with the treacly bullshit of Love Story
-The Maysles brothers and Charlotte Zwerin's documentary on the Rolling Stones, Gimme Shelter, films the exact moment when the '60s counter-culture implodes
-Hot young film critic Roger Ebert and tit fancier Russ Meyer collaborate on Beyond the Valley of the Dolls

Elsewhere in world cinema in 1970
-Chilean-French director Alejandro Jodorowsky makes El Topo in Mexico, the first of his major spiritual-surrealist epics
-Dario Argento's stylish thriller The Bird with the Crystal Plumage kicks the Italian genre of the giallo into overdrive
-Michael Lindsay-Hogg's documentary Let It Be, shot for British TV but released theatrically, documents in excruciating detail the in-group hatreds that would eventually break up The Beatles

Thứ Ba, 19 tháng 8, 2014

UNNECESSARY EXPENDITURE

Whatever natural goodwill one has towards the central gimmick of the central gimmick of the Expendables franchise - lookit all the '80s action stars in one place! and these other guys like Terry Crews and Randy Couture, for no immediately apparent reason! - it has long since been expend worn out by the time arrive at The Expendables 3, a movie that commits the mortal sin of having that many "E"s in its title, and replacing none of them with the Arabic numeral "3". I mean, shit. The 3xp3ndabl3s. It's a natural. It would, at any rate, be sufficiently brazen about being stupid in such a case that it might be possible to regard the movie as moderately charming in its self-aware crappiness. But that is not to be the case: this is an inordinately humorless film, in fact, especially for one which boasts such a considerable percentage of its running time in the form of lead-footed quips choked out by its ensemble cast in a vague approximation of the japes that action stars toss out when they off a bad guy in a specially elaborate way.

But I do not wish to lose the thread. 2010's The Expendables managed to scrape by on the strength of its conceit, and 2012's The Expendables 2 at least had Jean-Claude Van Damme camping up a storm as a bad guy named Vilain. Neither one of them is really any good at all, but they at least live up to their billing. E3, sadly, comes after the franchise has already called in Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis, & Chuck Norris, and the best it can add to the table are Wesley Snipes, a fine addition who gets precisely fuck-all to do; Mel Gibson, a currently disgraced loony whose action heyday was in a kind of light entertainment miles away from anything that Stallone or Schwarzenegger ever dreamed of doing; Harrison Ford, barely even feigning an attempt to hide his disinterest in the film (he gets the solitary F-bomb in a movie that successfully, but pointlessly, targeted a PG-13 rating, and I do think he enjoyed that); Antonio Banderas, who, okay, I'll let them have Antonio Banderas. And Kelsey fucking Grammer, who spent the '80s playing an incongruously pretentious know-it-all at a cozy bar on a TV sitcom. To add some young blood, the film adds several non-actors and Kellan Lutz, who does not really stand out as better than any of them though he's definitely up to more here than he was in the excessively vapid The Legend of Hercules earlier this year.

The the film offers up little to none of the 1987 recess playground fantasy that its predecessors managed to is one of its primary flaws. That it's as godforsakenly boring as watching glaciers recede is another, and probably the worse. After all, plenty of action films have been great despite not having airtight conceptual hooks based on the personae of their stars. Very few action films - perhaps even none - have been great despite having shitty action sequences. And golly gee willickers, but the action sequences in The Expendables 3 are dull, flat affairs, shot with busy handheld cameras and lazily cross-cut. The big, sprawling finale at least has some interesting choreography and fun use of its set, though the need to give every member of an increasingly bloated ensemble of heroes does compromise the clarity and sense of individual stakes, turning into a kind of madcap "everybody everywhere" maelstrom.

So no, the action isn't terribly exciting; when it's there are all. The Expendables 3 is a complex, chatty bastard of a movie, with a rather busy narrative that involves Barney Ross (Stallone) facing down demons in the form of arms dealer Conrad Stonebanks (Gibson), with whom he has A Past. Such a traumatic Past, in fact, that he refuses to endanger the lives of his mercenary buddies, the Expendables, leaving behind a very pissed off Lee Christmas (Statham) and all their colleagues that we're meant to have feelings about, three films in. And I suppose somewhere, someone does, though between the blunt force acting and the clumsy dialogue in the screenplay by Stallone and Creighton Rothenberger & Katrin Benedikt, I will confess to a certain difficulty in even recognising these macho slabs of coolly flippant attitude and cartoon homoeroticism as representing humans.

But oh me, oh my, is the film ever in the bag for its "character" "plot", hoping we'll be so captivated by the playing out of honor and duty and rag-tag family units that we will overlook, gratefully, the fact that not a goddamn thing happens for the first half of a punishingly long 126-minute film. That does not happen: the characters feel fake, the places they enact their tragedy feels fake (the climax takes place in a Fake Asian country whose name sounds like "Assmanistan", and it consists in its entirety of a ruined hotel complex, apparently), the stakes are so unclear that it would be paying them much too much respect to say that they seem fake. The film comes alive only when Banderas or Gibson appear onscreen, both of them playing up the ridiculousness to levels that Stallone and Statham (among many others) seem incapable of even recognising, let alone reaching; it's a campy, trivial sort of life energy, but by the time Banderas has his first and best scene, deep into the movie, anything that implies life exists within this universe is as precious as water in a desert. The Expendables 3 is unfathomably ill-executed, tedious for nearly its entire running time and inexplicably for the rest. Every last line of dialogue is a eye-rolling anti-masterpiece, virtually the entire cast looks openly miserable and/or bored out of their fucking minds, and the action is too messy to be even a tiny bit exciting. There's a certain basic level of competency that the film never drops below - it was made by professionals, after all - but I could hardly imagine any way to make the experience any worse.

1/10