I never do this...but when I saw "42", it seemed appropriate. The Dodgers were playing a day game in New York (of all places) during the movie, so I left my phone on silence, and I checked in on their progress while I was watching the story of Jackie Robinson unfold. As the film ended with the end of Robinson's rookie season, I looked down at my phone, and the Dodgers had just defeated the Mets. Watching this movie about the most significant Dodger ever made me want to check in with my team while I was watching the movie. It occurred to me that even though Jackie Robinson will always be remembered for the remarkable contributions he made to humanity, it might be forgotten that had he not played the game of baseball very well, he would not have made the progress that he made. So, in that light, it seemed in the spirit of the film to check in on the Boys in Blue as I watched the drama unfold on the movie screen (there were 5 people in the theater, so I didn't shine a light on anyone, in case anyone wondered).
This is a story that begs to be told on the movie screen. It involves great human drama, an underdog story, and a love story. It follows the pursuit of not one, but two men, and how they accomplished that shared goal together. It also follows the journey of a remarkable couple, whose love for each other made the success of the pursuit possible. The young actor cast to play Robinson is Chadwick Boseman. He is well suited to the role. He brings Jackie Robinson to all of us, as we see before us how this man was able to help integrate America's game. Jackie Robinson was no pacifist. One of the reasons he was chosen by the Dodgers' owner was that he had stood up to racism in the past (Robinson had been court marshaled during WW2 because he refused to follow segregation rules on a military bus). Boseman is able to show the simmering anger that Robinson felt, but also his commitment to controlling his temper. As the Dodgers' owner, Harrison Ford inhabits Branch Rickey very well. If the viewer thinks he is hamming it up in the role, watch old film footage of Branch Rickey. You will see that Ford's portrayal is note perfect, and it would be good to see Mr. Ford recognized for his work next Oscar season, an honor that has alluded him so far in his long acting career. The other essential partnership which made this story possible is the love story between Jackie and his wife Rachel. Rachel Robinson is played by Nicole Beharie, and brings the right balance of tenderness and strength to portray a woman who needed both of those things to support her husband who had to go through a living hell. The story of these three people is the heart of the movie.
Beyond that, since many of the anecdotes depicted in the movie are well known, the movie was more of a warm, inspirational story told well. As Robinson makes his way to the big leagues, he is defended in surprising ways. Perhaps the best scene in that vain is the scene in which Dodger manager Leo Durocher (played very well by Christopher Meloni) confronts the team regarding a petition certain players had circulated stating that they would not play for the Dodgers next to a black man. Durocher stymies their rebellion, but not before some colorful language is used, and he makes known to the players the Robinson is only the first of many talented players from the Negro Leagues who will enter the Majors, and that they better play well if they like their jobs.
The movie also brings back 40's baseball well. It brings us into that world, and it aids the story very well. The spring training facility at the beginning of the film does not look glamorous. The grass is not well manicured, and it reminds us that baseball was not the big business then that it is now. Also, the technology of digital effects is used to bring to life old ball parks that have been gone for decades. Seeing Ebbet's Field, The Polo Grounds, Forbes Field, and other places come to life again was great for this baseball devote.
However, in spite of all the window dressing, the heart of the movie is the human drama. We get a glimpse into the close partnership between Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson. Both of those men gave credit to the other man for the success of their experiment until the day they died. Harrison Ford plays the role with great gusto, and the scenes of him encouraging Robinson and demanding loyalty from his other employees are some of the movie's best scenes. The movie also reserves a special place for Wendell Smith (Andre Holland), a journalist for the African American newspaper "The Pittsburgh Courier" who followed Jackie Robinson's rookie year and chronicled it. And finally, we see the love story between Jackie and Rachel played out before our eyes. Their need for each other is evident in one scene specifically. As they stroll through a Florida neighborhood together, they are approached by a man who sees them strolling. The man is doing some city work on a power line, but wants to speak with them. As he stops his work to approach the couple, they become concerned. With the abuse they have already endured, they are understandably defensive as this stranger approaches them. But, as he reaches them, he makes known to both of them that he is "pulling for him," and that he deserves a shot like everyone else.
I doubt very much that this movie will win any awards next award season. It is not a groundbreaking masterpiece. However, I spent more than half of this movie with a lump in my throat. This is a story I know very well, and the story is brought to the screen with accuracy and dignity. In the end, that is enough. Some of the reviews have stated that the movie played it safe. I cannot totally disagree, but I can say that I have rarely had a more satisfying emotional experience at a movie than I did seeing this movie. Cinema can be avant garde and cutting edge. But it can also be the keeper of inspirational stories like this one. The story tells of people not only motivated by a desire for fairness, but also motivated by a faith in Christ that gives them the strength to overcome barriers.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Lost In Translation
There is a unique feel to this movie. It manages to have a dreamlike quality, though the characters in the film are hardly living in the kind of dream they would prefer. This is a movie that is about many things, but as I watched it again some 9 years after first seeing it in the movie theater, I was struck by one theme in particular. That theme is intimacy.
There is one emotion that both Bob (Bill Murray) and Charlotte (Scarlett Johnansson) certainly feel: loneliness. The film follows these two characters as they each journey through their respective lives of isolation and searching. Bob Harris is a famous American movie actor who has journeyed to Tokyo to shoot an advertisement for a Japanese whiskey called Santore. Charlotte is in Tokyo with her photographer husband as he is on a photo shoot in Tokyo. The two of them are staying in the same swanky hotel, and they happen upon each other one night at the hotel bar while listening to the hotel bar singer. Bob is in a mid-life crisis of sorts, as his distance from his wife and kids is not only geographical, but also metaphysical. Charlotte is feeling increasingly distant from her husband, and while he works on his photo shoots, she listens to self help books and visits Buddhist shrines, trying to discover some meaning for her life. Their loneliness is exacerbated by the fact that they are foreigners. Neither of them speak Japanese, so everything around them presents barriers. In what is possibly the signature scene of the movie, Bob Harris is trying to shoot the whiskey commercial. After shooting the first take, the director of the commercial gives a lengthy piece of direction to the translator. The translator in turn relays the message to Harris, and it seems to be much more brief than what the director said to the translator. Other scenes like this ensue. Anyone who has been in a country wherein their native language is not the primary language spoken can identify with these scenes.
Having set the stage, the theme of intimacy begins to take center stage. As Bob and Charlotte meet, they begin to spend time together. They are clearly at very different stages in their lives, but they also seem to have a lot in common. The connection that they have is beautifully depicted. My favorite example of this is a scene at a nightclub wherein the two characters are sitting together, and Charlotte lovingly rests her head on Bob's shoulder. There is an unspoken connection between these two characters that goes beyond anything physical. This is most clearly seen near the end of the film. Bob has a one night stand with the resident lounge singer. The next morning, Charlotte knocks on his door, hoping to spend another day together. She is disappointed to find this situation, and the rest of their day together is spent in awkward conversation and tension. What is the problem? They have not slept together, or even exchanged more than a head on the shoulder. However, they have connected in such a deep way that Charlotte does feel betrayal and disappointment. It is clear that there is chemistry between them, and they are both needy. So, to Charlotte, Bob's actions are insensitive.
I think that the closing images of this film are among the most evocative I have ever seen. I will not spoil the ending. Suffice to say, there is a certain controversy to it, and the mystery of the ending does indeed give the entire film an elusive air. It is painful to watch how distant both of the main characters are from their respective spouses, and how they deal with that pain together is what the movie is about. Their individual pain forges an intimacy with each other that goes beyond anything sexual. It seems that these two have some degree of physical attraction, but whatever exists in that realm is secondary to the spiritual connection the two characters have. Bill Murray is amazing in this movie, and I wish he would have won the Oscar for it. He brings a world weary quality to his performance that really is the heart of this film. In some ways, the truths of the book of Ecclesiastes are on display here, as the weariness of life is on display as well as the simple comfort of human contact. Sofia Coppola, who wrote and directed this movie, uses all of the elements of film making (photography, soundtrack, dialogue, etc) to create an elusive yet palatable tone to this movie. The tone on its own makes this movie so watchable. The characters and them of the movie make it exceptional.
There is one emotion that both Bob (Bill Murray) and Charlotte (Scarlett Johnansson) certainly feel: loneliness. The film follows these two characters as they each journey through their respective lives of isolation and searching. Bob Harris is a famous American movie actor who has journeyed to Tokyo to shoot an advertisement for a Japanese whiskey called Santore. Charlotte is in Tokyo with her photographer husband as he is on a photo shoot in Tokyo. The two of them are staying in the same swanky hotel, and they happen upon each other one night at the hotel bar while listening to the hotel bar singer. Bob is in a mid-life crisis of sorts, as his distance from his wife and kids is not only geographical, but also metaphysical. Charlotte is feeling increasingly distant from her husband, and while he works on his photo shoots, she listens to self help books and visits Buddhist shrines, trying to discover some meaning for her life. Their loneliness is exacerbated by the fact that they are foreigners. Neither of them speak Japanese, so everything around them presents barriers. In what is possibly the signature scene of the movie, Bob Harris is trying to shoot the whiskey commercial. After shooting the first take, the director of the commercial gives a lengthy piece of direction to the translator. The translator in turn relays the message to Harris, and it seems to be much more brief than what the director said to the translator. Other scenes like this ensue. Anyone who has been in a country wherein their native language is not the primary language spoken can identify with these scenes.
Having set the stage, the theme of intimacy begins to take center stage. As Bob and Charlotte meet, they begin to spend time together. They are clearly at very different stages in their lives, but they also seem to have a lot in common. The connection that they have is beautifully depicted. My favorite example of this is a scene at a nightclub wherein the two characters are sitting together, and Charlotte lovingly rests her head on Bob's shoulder. There is an unspoken connection between these two characters that goes beyond anything physical. This is most clearly seen near the end of the film. Bob has a one night stand with the resident lounge singer. The next morning, Charlotte knocks on his door, hoping to spend another day together. She is disappointed to find this situation, and the rest of their day together is spent in awkward conversation and tension. What is the problem? They have not slept together, or even exchanged more than a head on the shoulder. However, they have connected in such a deep way that Charlotte does feel betrayal and disappointment. It is clear that there is chemistry between them, and they are both needy. So, to Charlotte, Bob's actions are insensitive.
I think that the closing images of this film are among the most evocative I have ever seen. I will not spoil the ending. Suffice to say, there is a certain controversy to it, and the mystery of the ending does indeed give the entire film an elusive air. It is painful to watch how distant both of the main characters are from their respective spouses, and how they deal with that pain together is what the movie is about. Their individual pain forges an intimacy with each other that goes beyond anything sexual. It seems that these two have some degree of physical attraction, but whatever exists in that realm is secondary to the spiritual connection the two characters have. Bill Murray is amazing in this movie, and I wish he would have won the Oscar for it. He brings a world weary quality to his performance that really is the heart of this film. In some ways, the truths of the book of Ecclesiastes are on display here, as the weariness of life is on display as well as the simple comfort of human contact. Sofia Coppola, who wrote and directed this movie, uses all of the elements of film making (photography, soundtrack, dialogue, etc) to create an elusive yet palatable tone to this movie. The tone on its own makes this movie so watchable. The characters and them of the movie make it exceptional.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Argo
This movie is the best kind of conventional entertainment. It has a good story, good characters, a story that a lot of us know about, and it is executed very well. So, how did it get to be Best Picture? Don't get me wrong, this is an extraordinarily crafted piece of work, much like "Lincoln". If anything, "Lincon" and "Argo" show two directors from different generations who are doing very well crafted entertainment. Personally, I would say that the last movie Ben Affleck made (2010's "The Town") was a better movie, because I felt that it had a more interesting plot and had more to say about the plight of humanity. "Argo" is a typical "against all odds" story with a wonderful cast of character actors, and a plot constructed so well that it keeps the viewer on the edge of their seat.
The movie involves a CIA agent named Tony Mendez who comes up with a way to get 6 American hostages out of Iran during the famous Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 and 1980. The only alternative he can come up with is to crate a story whereby he and the 6 Americans pose as a film crew shooting on location in Tehran. Once their identities have been given and fake passports have been given, they can attempt to got to the airport and get through the checkpoints so they can get back to America. In order to make the plot work, Mendez (played with skill by Ben Affleck himself) enlists the help of two Hollywood pros (Alan Arkin and John Goodman). They give the plot credibility and are able to support Mendez's mission from Hollywood. Once all the pieces of the plot are in place, the story is ready to unfold, and it is very engaging.
Maybe part of the reason this film won Best Picture was that Ben Affleck was snubbed in the Best Director category by not even being nominated. There are always reasons besides aesthetics that people vote for Oscars, and it seems like that happened this year. This is a very good movie, but when it is boiled down to its essence, it is pretty standard stuff. It actually reminded me a little bit of another action type movie that was nominated for Best Picture back in 1993. That movie was called "The Fugitive", and while it was a well crafted action/adventure movie, it didn't stand a chance against another movie that year called "Schindler's List". "Schindler's List" not only had quality going for it. It also had an outstanding cause as well as a director who had gotten snubbed at the Oscars in the past. For the 2012 Oscars, I have now seen 4 of the 9 movies that were nominated ("Les Miserables", "Zero Dark Thirty", "Lincoln", and this movie), and I would vote for all three of the other films before this one for Best Picture. My wife put it very well...this movie is the "Bourne" films combined with "Apollo 13". All of those movies are of a high quality, but the "Bourne" films were never even considered Oscar worthy. Any great film should be considered, but since the Oscars usually don't consider them, it is a mystery to me why "Argo" got such a following. Perhaps the sensibilities of the Academy are changing, and we will see more action oriented movies considered for these types of honors. Other movies of this genre are even better, and while this one is very good, it doesn't exactly stand out as the unique achievement in film making that a Best Picture winner is supposed to be. To compare apples to apples a bit more, "Lincoln" was able to take better advantage of its marvelous character actor ensemble. That was due to its amazing script. Meanwhile, in "Argo", there are several great actors who are not given as much upon which to chew.
For the third or fourth time, this was a great movie. This essay is not meant to criticize Affleck or anyone on the movie, who all did an outstanding job on it. More than anything, the philosophical question as to what makes a good film, and why do certain people vote the way they do is always interesting. In the case of "Argo", similar films to it have not been considered as much in the past. Maybe some day I will attempt to wrestle with the question of aesthetics (the judgment of the quality of art), but I don't know a whole lot about it. For now, I will simply comment that while this movie is praiseworthy, I would not have gotten my vote for "Best Picture." I am still a big "Les Miserables" advocate, and until I see the other five movies that were nominated, I may stay that way
The movie involves a CIA agent named Tony Mendez who comes up with a way to get 6 American hostages out of Iran during the famous Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 and 1980. The only alternative he can come up with is to crate a story whereby he and the 6 Americans pose as a film crew shooting on location in Tehran. Once their identities have been given and fake passports have been given, they can attempt to got to the airport and get through the checkpoints so they can get back to America. In order to make the plot work, Mendez (played with skill by Ben Affleck himself) enlists the help of two Hollywood pros (Alan Arkin and John Goodman). They give the plot credibility and are able to support Mendez's mission from Hollywood. Once all the pieces of the plot are in place, the story is ready to unfold, and it is very engaging.
Maybe part of the reason this film won Best Picture was that Ben Affleck was snubbed in the Best Director category by not even being nominated. There are always reasons besides aesthetics that people vote for Oscars, and it seems like that happened this year. This is a very good movie, but when it is boiled down to its essence, it is pretty standard stuff. It actually reminded me a little bit of another action type movie that was nominated for Best Picture back in 1993. That movie was called "The Fugitive", and while it was a well crafted action/adventure movie, it didn't stand a chance against another movie that year called "Schindler's List". "Schindler's List" not only had quality going for it. It also had an outstanding cause as well as a director who had gotten snubbed at the Oscars in the past. For the 2012 Oscars, I have now seen 4 of the 9 movies that were nominated ("Les Miserables", "Zero Dark Thirty", "Lincoln", and this movie), and I would vote for all three of the other films before this one for Best Picture. My wife put it very well...this movie is the "Bourne" films combined with "Apollo 13". All of those movies are of a high quality, but the "Bourne" films were never even considered Oscar worthy. Any great film should be considered, but since the Oscars usually don't consider them, it is a mystery to me why "Argo" got such a following. Perhaps the sensibilities of the Academy are changing, and we will see more action oriented movies considered for these types of honors. Other movies of this genre are even better, and while this one is very good, it doesn't exactly stand out as the unique achievement in film making that a Best Picture winner is supposed to be. To compare apples to apples a bit more, "Lincoln" was able to take better advantage of its marvelous character actor ensemble. That was due to its amazing script. Meanwhile, in "Argo", there are several great actors who are not given as much upon which to chew.
For the third or fourth time, this was a great movie. This essay is not meant to criticize Affleck or anyone on the movie, who all did an outstanding job on it. More than anything, the philosophical question as to what makes a good film, and why do certain people vote the way they do is always interesting. In the case of "Argo", similar films to it have not been considered as much in the past. Maybe some day I will attempt to wrestle with the question of aesthetics (the judgment of the quality of art), but I don't know a whole lot about it. For now, I will simply comment that while this movie is praiseworthy, I would not have gotten my vote for "Best Picture." I am still a big "Les Miserables" advocate, and until I see the other five movies that were nominated, I may stay that way
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Stranger Than FIction
Sometimes, I wonder if one of the ways one can tell if one is watching an original movie is if one says to him or herself, "It seems like someone else must have made this movie before...it's such a great idea." Rack my brain as I might, I cannot think of another movie like this one. It was released some 7 years ago. I watched it again this week, and while I see some of its weaknesses, its originality and humor are more clear to me than ever. It is difficult to write about this movie without revealing essential plot points. I will not reveal the end, but if you want to be totally surprised by this great story, stop reading here and come back to my entry later :).
Will Ferrell plays Harold Crick, an IRS agent with a decidedly dull and predictable life. One day, while he is going about his routine, he starts hearing an audible voice. While he hears it and the audience of the film hears it, no one else does. The voice is narrating his life as he lives it. At first, this is troubling to Harold and annoying, since he cannot make the voice stop. Then, as the voice reveals a future key turn of events in Harold's life, Harold becomes truly scared. He begins to seek help, but the therapists he sees merely prescribe medication for schizophrenia. Harold understands their diagnosis, but feels he is sane and is hearing this voice. The second therapist he sees suggests to him that he talk to someone who knows about literature, since the voice he is hearing seems to be narrating his life, as though he were living in a book. He finds a literature professor at a local college (Dustin Hoffman) who begins to help him. As the story continues, Harold has to figure out what kind of a story he is living, and what he is to do about it. While Harold's fate unfolds, the author of the story (Emma Thompson) is struggling. She is a writer of tragedies, and she always kills off her main characters. However, she has encountered a nasty case of writer's block, and she cannot figure out how to creatively kill of the character of her new story, a man named Harold Crick. It is her voice that Harold Crick hears narrating her life, and when the professor of literature who is helping Harold discovers who the voice who is narrating his life belongs to, he knows that Harold can only have one fate. This is troubling to Harold because the narrator's voice and the crisis that it caused in his life has opened Harold up to living his life in a new way. This includes falling in love with a young lady in town who owns a bakery (Maggie Gyllenhall), and deepening his freiendship with a coworker at the IRS. Thus, Harold begins a quest to find the author of his life and convince her not to kill him.
For some reason, the words the late Roger Ebert wrote about this movie have stuck with me through the years. This movie actually asks questions about what duty an artist has to his or her work. If letting Harold live makes for a less artistic story, what should the artist do? The movie is very well constructed. There are some shots near the beginning of a young boy on a bike and of a young lady job searching that seem unrelated to the story, but come to be essential elements of the story. As I watched the movie again, some of the scenes with the author and the agent from the publisher (played well by Queen Latifah) seem forced and not as natural as the rest of the plot. However, since theplot revolves around the tension between creature and creator, the author's story is vital. I simply think that many of the scenes with the two of them seem awkward, and when the story returns to Harold Crick, the soul of the movie is really there. Also, Dustin Hoffman is absolutely wonderful in this movie. He creates a character who is so unapologetic in his academic world. He sees the man in front of him as a character, even though he is a real person. As such, he is cavalier with Harold, but always in a way that is satirical and true. Every motion Hoffman makes-every nervous twitch, every cup of coffee-contributes to the character he creates. Will Ferrell is also a perfect choice for his role. Ferrell always has had the strength of being "all in" with any role he does, whether in a full length film, or in a short SNL sketch. Here, his comic abilities serve him well, but he creates a character who is so sympathetic and real that one forgets that this is the same actor who streaked through "Old School."
In the end, the movie is great because it is original. It has a new angle on storytelling, and the climactic moments of the movie feel truly different from anything else I have ever seen. Not only is the movie original, however, it also is a heartfelt piece of work that is poignant and warm. As the closing scenes flash across the screen at this viewing, I felt touched in the same way I am every time I watch the movie. It is original indeed, but it also has a big heart, and that's what brings me back to it.
Will Ferrell plays Harold Crick, an IRS agent with a decidedly dull and predictable life. One day, while he is going about his routine, he starts hearing an audible voice. While he hears it and the audience of the film hears it, no one else does. The voice is narrating his life as he lives it. At first, this is troubling to Harold and annoying, since he cannot make the voice stop. Then, as the voice reveals a future key turn of events in Harold's life, Harold becomes truly scared. He begins to seek help, but the therapists he sees merely prescribe medication for schizophrenia. Harold understands their diagnosis, but feels he is sane and is hearing this voice. The second therapist he sees suggests to him that he talk to someone who knows about literature, since the voice he is hearing seems to be narrating his life, as though he were living in a book. He finds a literature professor at a local college (Dustin Hoffman) who begins to help him. As the story continues, Harold has to figure out what kind of a story he is living, and what he is to do about it. While Harold's fate unfolds, the author of the story (Emma Thompson) is struggling. She is a writer of tragedies, and she always kills off her main characters. However, she has encountered a nasty case of writer's block, and she cannot figure out how to creatively kill of the character of her new story, a man named Harold Crick. It is her voice that Harold Crick hears narrating her life, and when the professor of literature who is helping Harold discovers who the voice who is narrating his life belongs to, he knows that Harold can only have one fate. This is troubling to Harold because the narrator's voice and the crisis that it caused in his life has opened Harold up to living his life in a new way. This includes falling in love with a young lady in town who owns a bakery (Maggie Gyllenhall), and deepening his freiendship with a coworker at the IRS. Thus, Harold begins a quest to find the author of his life and convince her not to kill him.
For some reason, the words the late Roger Ebert wrote about this movie have stuck with me through the years. This movie actually asks questions about what duty an artist has to his or her work. If letting Harold live makes for a less artistic story, what should the artist do? The movie is very well constructed. There are some shots near the beginning of a young boy on a bike and of a young lady job searching that seem unrelated to the story, but come to be essential elements of the story. As I watched the movie again, some of the scenes with the author and the agent from the publisher (played well by Queen Latifah) seem forced and not as natural as the rest of the plot. However, since theplot revolves around the tension between creature and creator, the author's story is vital. I simply think that many of the scenes with the two of them seem awkward, and when the story returns to Harold Crick, the soul of the movie is really there. Also, Dustin Hoffman is absolutely wonderful in this movie. He creates a character who is so unapologetic in his academic world. He sees the man in front of him as a character, even though he is a real person. As such, he is cavalier with Harold, but always in a way that is satirical and true. Every motion Hoffman makes-every nervous twitch, every cup of coffee-contributes to the character he creates. Will Ferrell is also a perfect choice for his role. Ferrell always has had the strength of being "all in" with any role he does, whether in a full length film, or in a short SNL sketch. Here, his comic abilities serve him well, but he creates a character who is so sympathetic and real that one forgets that this is the same actor who streaked through "Old School."
In the end, the movie is great because it is original. It has a new angle on storytelling, and the climactic moments of the movie feel truly different from anything else I have ever seen. Not only is the movie original, however, it also is a heartfelt piece of work that is poignant and warm. As the closing scenes flash across the screen at this viewing, I felt touched in the same way I am every time I watch the movie. It is original indeed, but it also has a big heart, and that's what brings me back to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)