I'm wondering if this movie represents a new generation of romantic comedy. As the movie begins (since it is a romantic comedy), there are certain strands of the plot that the viewer knows will end a certain way. For instance (without giving too much away), the viewer is quite certain that the lady's man Jacob (Ryan Gosling) will undergo some kind of crisis, and we also seem to know that that crisis will involve Hannah (Emma Stone). Also, we know that the movie's premise is that Cal (Steve Carell) and Emily (Julianne Moore) are getting a divorce. Since that is how the movie begins, the viewer knows that their relationship will be explored further, even though there is apparent closure to their relationship. But at the same time, there were plot twists to this movie that seem unconventional.
At times, the mechanisms of the plot stretch believability. That is easily forgiven due to the overall likability of the characters and the lack of cynicism in the plot. The actors are all wonderful in their respective parts. Steve Carell sells his character well. He's a good man who loves him family, but has let some parts of his life get away from him. His wife asks him for a divorce, and he begins moping around in a local bar. While there, Jacob spots him, takes pity on him, and decides to train him to be a lady's man. We know two things in the plot. First, we are quite certain that something is going to upset Jacob's swinging bachelor life. Second, we know that things aren't quite over yet for Cal and Emily. This is a classic case of the journey being more the point than the destination. We know certain things about the destination (since this is a romantic comedy), but how the viewer arrives at the destination is more the point. There is also a great plot twist about 3/4 of the way through the movie that brings the movie together very well.
Overall, this is a somewhat routine movie about likable people. That is its strength. It doesn't try to do too much, and the movie has a confidence to it that makes it enjoyable. The movie also proves to be another fine example of Ryan Gosling's talents as an actor. He truly is a chameleon. He inhabits roles, and here we never doubt that he has become the character. However, since the character undergoes extensive development, he also has to show a great deal of complexity to the character, and he nails it. As a father of a daughter, I also reacted well to a key father daughter relationship that will go unnamed. The movie tries to do a little too much with Cal's teenage son. In trying to extend the love dilemma to him, the film loses some of its veracity. However, it does give us a very sympathetic 13 year old boy, rather than the latent perverts that 13 year old boys are often shown to be in movies.
This is a movie that is able to be both light and substantial. It is a good piece if work, and definitely a good movie if you want some light entertainment that isn't too light.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Saturday, January 14, 2012
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader"
Some months ago, I wrote a blog entry about Peter Jackson's adaptation of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. In that entry, I explained that one of the strengths of the films was their ability to be true to the spirit of the books, even if some of the details of the book were changed. Similarly, the Harry Potter books have been made into 8 films. While none of these films will go down as the greatest film ever made, they all capture the spirit of the books upon which they are based, and they are all solid entertainment. That, more than anything else, is why I think the adaptations of the Narnia books are failures. I think also that my perspective is informed by how much these stories mean to me. I wonder if I would be more forgiving if these stories were not such a part of my formative years. In any case, "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" suffers from the same shortcoming that plagued the other two Narnia films. All three movies would not stand on their own as movies. On top of that, they do not do the work necessary to be true to the spirit of the books. Why the filmmakers decide to change so much is beyond me, but filmmakers do that all the time with adaptations of books. What makes these movies particularly unfocused is their inability to see the strengths of the stories found in Lewis' books. In other words, since the books have great stories, it would seem that a lot of the work is done for the screenwriters! Instead, the screenwriters decide to make up stories that aren't in the book. At the same time, the screenwriters still want to have some of the original elements from the book, so they clumsily slap in some of them. This makes for nonsensical storytelling, since the background for some of the scenes is not fully explained, and the story has been wasting time in other ways that have nothing to do with the original story.
Focusing in on "Dawn Treader", one of the most important scenes in the book is robbed of its power due to ineffective storytelling. The scene in question is the one wherein the character Eustace is shed of his dragon's skin by the lion Aslan. In the book, the scene is one that depicts a soul who is being saved by the only person who can save him. It would seem that a screenwriter would love to have a scene of a powerful lion tearing off a dragon's skin to reveal a boy, but the film softballs this scene. There is no exposition of the plot point that the dragon whom Eustace becomes symbolizes the greed and ugliness of his heart. When Aslan rips the dragon flesh off of Eustace, this reminds the reader of the painful transformation of a human soul whose sin and ugliness must be washed away by God. Since no background is given in the film as to why Eustace becomes the dragon, the power of Aslan removing his skin is completely lost, and while it is one of the scenes that is technically faithful to the book, the spirit of the book is lost. This is just one example in this film of a trend which affected all three films.
The debate here could be endless. I'm sure there are many who simply found the movie captivating whether they had read the book or not. This is where matters of opinion come in. Also, would I feel this strongly if I had no connection to the Lewis books? It is impossible for me to know that. All I can say is that I still feel that the storytelling is weak because this movie seems to want to have a lot of the cinematic and visual pay offs of the book without laying the groundwork that is found in the story. That is the biggest reason why all 3 of these films have been a major disappointment to me. What I wouldn't give to have CS Lewis' reviews of these 3 films.
Focusing in on "Dawn Treader", one of the most important scenes in the book is robbed of its power due to ineffective storytelling. The scene in question is the one wherein the character Eustace is shed of his dragon's skin by the lion Aslan. In the book, the scene is one that depicts a soul who is being saved by the only person who can save him. It would seem that a screenwriter would love to have a scene of a powerful lion tearing off a dragon's skin to reveal a boy, but the film softballs this scene. There is no exposition of the plot point that the dragon whom Eustace becomes symbolizes the greed and ugliness of his heart. When Aslan rips the dragon flesh off of Eustace, this reminds the reader of the painful transformation of a human soul whose sin and ugliness must be washed away by God. Since no background is given in the film as to why Eustace becomes the dragon, the power of Aslan removing his skin is completely lost, and while it is one of the scenes that is technically faithful to the book, the spirit of the book is lost. This is just one example in this film of a trend which affected all three films.
The debate here could be endless. I'm sure there are many who simply found the movie captivating whether they had read the book or not. This is where matters of opinion come in. Also, would I feel this strongly if I had no connection to the Lewis books? It is impossible for me to know that. All I can say is that I still feel that the storytelling is weak because this movie seems to want to have a lot of the cinematic and visual pay offs of the book without laying the groundwork that is found in the story. That is the biggest reason why all 3 of these films have been a major disappointment to me. What I wouldn't give to have CS Lewis' reviews of these 3 films.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Krystof Kiewsloski's 3 Colors Trilogy
2011 was a great year for movies for me. I made some wonderful discoveries, and I was able to rethink some old favorites. This film trilogy by Krystof Kiewsloski ended up being the best new discovery I made last year as I began writing this blog. I wrote about them earlier this year, but wanted to revisit them, and also encourage my readers to consider watching them in 2012. The films were originally released in the early 1990's. I had heard about them for years, but had never taken the time to watch them. Now, that I have, I see what all the fuss was about. The three films are entitled "Blue", "White" and "Red" in reference to the three colors in the French flag. Also, each of these films is about one of the three concepts of the French motto (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity). These films taken together are one of those experiences that shows more than most the unique nature of cinema, and why so much can be expressed with a movie camera that simply cannot be expressed any other way.
In "Blue", Juliette Binoche plays Julie, a woman who loses her husband and young daughter in a car accident. Her husband is a famous composer who is writing a symphonic piece to commemorate the unification of Europe. When they die, she attempts to completely separate herself from her past and from any emotional attachments. This proves to become more and more difficult as we get to know her. We come to find out that she is a compassionate person, and that she will not be able to abandon humanity, even those people who have hurt her.
Kiewsloski does some wonderful things here with photography and with soundtrack. This is a total cinematic experience. The production design, the music, the acting, and the writing all feed the theme and tone of the film wonderfully. Take, for example, many of the scenes shot in the swimming pool. The water itself is blue. Also, the pool can symbolize liberty, because a person in it is not bound by gravity in the traditional sense. Julie escapes to the pool because she sees it as a place of liberty. But even there she cannot totally escape. In the end, the film grapples with the nature of liberty. Are we truly at liberty when we have no attachments to others? Or do we find true freedom in serving others? The film does not answer these questions, but allows us to grapple with them.
The second film in the trilogy, "White", goes in a different direction. It is a dark comedy, so many of the scenes of the film have an irony and a harshness that makes you laugh through your tears. The film follows Karol, a Polish immigrant to France whose marriage to Dominque is falling apart. We come to find out that there has been no consummation of the marriage (due to physical inability on his part to consummate), so Dominique is not only leaving him, but she is intent on humiliating him. Karol is left penniless and destitute. The majority of the film is about his attempt to rebuild his life and get equal with Dominique.
Here again, Kiewsloski uses the cinema as his canvas. The color white is everywhere in this movie. After his marriage is dissolved in a courtroom, Karol leaves the courtroom, making his way down the alabaster steps. As the pigeons fly away to avoid him, on of them defecates on him, leaving a white smear on his suit. The frozen landscapes of Poland bring the white theme. And the enduring image of Dominique in her wedding dress is used, as the hope of a marriage awaits Karol and Dominique, and to be a short lived disappointment.
In the end, this film is about getting even, and what that means. The climactic shot of the film has a power to it in showing when Karol has achieved his equality. But since there is more to the movie, the final shot of the film tells us far more about the true nature of the relationship between Karol and Dominique. The foreshadowing of the window shot early in the film shows a longing that Karol has for Dominique, and the final shot shows that same longing, though I will not say anything more about the final shot.
As I came to the third film in the trilogy, I had high expectations. It seemed unlikely that the third movie of the trilogy would equal or surpass the other two movies. What I found was another wonderful movie. I have seldom felt the kind of exhilaration that I felt as I watched the last frames of "Red". Though the 3 films of the 3 Colors Trilogy take place in different places and focus on different characters, it is clear the Kiewsloski is telling if not one story, then at least 3 related stories. What amazed me in watching this film is that even though "Blue" and "White" were so good, this film still went to a different level. Why? I think it is because this movie feels the most hopeful. None of the 3 films end sadly or tragically. In all three films, there is a clear resolution. But what makes this film different is its protagonist.
I once read that when Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote The Idiot, it was his aim to depict a perfectly upright man. In many ways, it feels as though Kiewsloski is doing that with the character of Valentine. She is sensitive, lovely, compassionate and selfless. In a movie with constant red imagery, here Kiewsloski names his character something that evokes the color. One night, Valentine is driving and hits a dog. She locates the dog's owner Joseph, and finds him to be a retired judge. He now spends his days using fancy equipment to spy on the phone conversations of other residents of Geneva. As this relationship plays it self out, another parallel story is playing itself out. A young law student who is on the verge of passing his exams lives on the same block as Valentine. As we find out more about Joseph and is background, we begin to see remarkable parallels between Joseph and the young law student who lives near Valentine. This film concerns itself with the broader implications of brotherly love and caring for mankind. I don't want to give anything away, but there is an identical image in all 3 films which ends differently in "Red", and I think in that scene we see a great deal about what Kiewsloski is trying to say in this film.
All three of these films evoke great excitement for me. Kiewsloski (who passed away in 1996 at age 54) creates 3 films that celebrate what cinema has to offer. He shows through his work that there are certain things that can be communicated through this medium which simply cannot be communicated any other way. The combination of music, story, visual images, clever dialogue and drama that can only come through in cinema is on full display. And yet, the films do not spoon feed the viewer. These movies challenge us with moral ambiguity, but then have the audacity to then challenge us with absolutes as well.
The last images of this film sum up the trilogy well. Here, we have a vast work of imagination that reminds us that we are all connected as humans. What connects us are ideals and our common humanity. But it doesn't end there. It also seems that Kiewsloski leaves us wanting to ask one final question: Where do we go from here?
In "Blue", Juliette Binoche plays Julie, a woman who loses her husband and young daughter in a car accident. Her husband is a famous composer who is writing a symphonic piece to commemorate the unification of Europe. When they die, she attempts to completely separate herself from her past and from any emotional attachments. This proves to become more and more difficult as we get to know her. We come to find out that she is a compassionate person, and that she will not be able to abandon humanity, even those people who have hurt her.
Kiewsloski does some wonderful things here with photography and with soundtrack. This is a total cinematic experience. The production design, the music, the acting, and the writing all feed the theme and tone of the film wonderfully. Take, for example, many of the scenes shot in the swimming pool. The water itself is blue. Also, the pool can symbolize liberty, because a person in it is not bound by gravity in the traditional sense. Julie escapes to the pool because she sees it as a place of liberty. But even there she cannot totally escape. In the end, the film grapples with the nature of liberty. Are we truly at liberty when we have no attachments to others? Or do we find true freedom in serving others? The film does not answer these questions, but allows us to grapple with them.
The second film in the trilogy, "White", goes in a different direction. It is a dark comedy, so many of the scenes of the film have an irony and a harshness that makes you laugh through your tears. The film follows Karol, a Polish immigrant to France whose marriage to Dominque is falling apart. We come to find out that there has been no consummation of the marriage (due to physical inability on his part to consummate), so Dominique is not only leaving him, but she is intent on humiliating him. Karol is left penniless and destitute. The majority of the film is about his attempt to rebuild his life and get equal with Dominique.
Here again, Kiewsloski uses the cinema as his canvas. The color white is everywhere in this movie. After his marriage is dissolved in a courtroom, Karol leaves the courtroom, making his way down the alabaster steps. As the pigeons fly away to avoid him, on of them defecates on him, leaving a white smear on his suit. The frozen landscapes of Poland bring the white theme. And the enduring image of Dominique in her wedding dress is used, as the hope of a marriage awaits Karol and Dominique, and to be a short lived disappointment.
In the end, this film is about getting even, and what that means. The climactic shot of the film has a power to it in showing when Karol has achieved his equality. But since there is more to the movie, the final shot of the film tells us far more about the true nature of the relationship between Karol and Dominique. The foreshadowing of the window shot early in the film shows a longing that Karol has for Dominique, and the final shot shows that same longing, though I will not say anything more about the final shot.
As I came to the third film in the trilogy, I had high expectations. It seemed unlikely that the third movie of the trilogy would equal or surpass the other two movies. What I found was another wonderful movie. I have seldom felt the kind of exhilaration that I felt as I watched the last frames of "Red". Though the 3 films of the 3 Colors Trilogy take place in different places and focus on different characters, it is clear the Kiewsloski is telling if not one story, then at least 3 related stories. What amazed me in watching this film is that even though "Blue" and "White" were so good, this film still went to a different level. Why? I think it is because this movie feels the most hopeful. None of the 3 films end sadly or tragically. In all three films, there is a clear resolution. But what makes this film different is its protagonist.
I once read that when Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote The Idiot, it was his aim to depict a perfectly upright man. In many ways, it feels as though Kiewsloski is doing that with the character of Valentine. She is sensitive, lovely, compassionate and selfless. In a movie with constant red imagery, here Kiewsloski names his character something that evokes the color. One night, Valentine is driving and hits a dog. She locates the dog's owner Joseph, and finds him to be a retired judge. He now spends his days using fancy equipment to spy on the phone conversations of other residents of Geneva. As this relationship plays it self out, another parallel story is playing itself out. A young law student who is on the verge of passing his exams lives on the same block as Valentine. As we find out more about Joseph and is background, we begin to see remarkable parallels between Joseph and the young law student who lives near Valentine. This film concerns itself with the broader implications of brotherly love and caring for mankind. I don't want to give anything away, but there is an identical image in all 3 films which ends differently in "Red", and I think in that scene we see a great deal about what Kiewsloski is trying to say in this film.
All three of these films evoke great excitement for me. Kiewsloski (who passed away in 1996 at age 54) creates 3 films that celebrate what cinema has to offer. He shows through his work that there are certain things that can be communicated through this medium which simply cannot be communicated any other way. The combination of music, story, visual images, clever dialogue and drama that can only come through in cinema is on full display. And yet, the films do not spoon feed the viewer. These movies challenge us with moral ambiguity, but then have the audacity to then challenge us with absolutes as well.
The last images of this film sum up the trilogy well. Here, we have a vast work of imagination that reminds us that we are all connected as humans. What connects us are ideals and our common humanity. But it doesn't end there. It also seems that Kiewsloski leaves us wanting to ask one final question: Where do we go from here?
Saturday, December 31, 2011
When Harry Met Sally
Happy New Year everyone! How many of you who are familiar with this movie remember that it revolves around New Year's Eve? It seems fitting for me to use this movie as a way of closing out 2011, the first year of this movie blog. I appreciate the reads that I have gotten in the past 9 months. My first review was "The King's Speech", after it won Best Picture. I am enjoying blogging a lot, and have loved the feedback I have gotten from you all. I guess I will keep going until someone out there begs me to stop.
What's another way to know that a film is great? I think it says something about the quality of a film if one has very little in common with the main characters, and still finds so much with which to identify. We are all humans after all, and even when we have different ethics, value and culture, there is still a lot of room for familiarity.
This works well with "When Harry Met Sally", for its characters lead very different lives from the lives that my wife and I live. My wife and I were each others' first love, while Harry and Sally have had many other loves in their lives. In spite of that, there is so much with which Steph and I can identify in this movie. What man does not watch as Harry deconstructs men to Sally and nod in some sort of familiarity? What person doesn't look at this couple and see so much humanity? True, there is an idyllic quality that permeates so much of Nora Ephron's (screenwriter=she also wrote "Sleepless in Seattle" and "You've Got Mail") work. New York always looks down right pastoral in her work. But in spite of the fanciful nature of the New York we are given, the film is grounded in a lot of reality.
New Year's Eve plays an important role in this movie for several reasons. The ending of the movie is set on New Year's Eve. The fact that both Harry and Sally find it necessary to have someone to be with on New Year's Eve speaks to the yearning that most people have for companionship. Steph and I have returned to this film several times over the years, both because it makes us laugh, and it warms our hearts. This is truly a romantic comedy for adults. It speaks frankly about the differences between male and female sexuality. Yet again, the fact that the characters in this movie have different baggage from me does not detract from its impact. The most famous scene of the movie (to those of you who have not seen it, I will not give it away---but you'll know which scene it is when it happens) is completely preposterous, but it makes a point in an uproarious way. Men and women approach sex and sexuality differently. Whether the differences come from evolution, creation, or simply social conditioning is beside the point. The point remains that there are differences, and they are a source of frustration, humor and exhilaration.
Maybe Steph and I will watch this movie tonight. The movie brilliantly weaves in interviews of older couples (some who have been married for many years) reflecting on their respective courtships. These interviews act as parentheses to the story of Harry and Sally. I think that these couples represent the kind of relationship for which Harry and Sally (and maybe all of us) yearn. Both Harry and Sally are not at peace. They attempt to find companionship in other ways and places, but in the end they only seem to find the companionship that they want in each other. New Year's Eve provides a fitting back drop to that, as so many reflect on the past and look to the future. I will gladly spend the waning hours of 2011 with my wife of almost 12 years, and I will look forward with hope to what the 13th year will bring.
What's another way to know that a film is great? I think it says something about the quality of a film if one has very little in common with the main characters, and still finds so much with which to identify. We are all humans after all, and even when we have different ethics, value and culture, there is still a lot of room for familiarity.
This works well with "When Harry Met Sally", for its characters lead very different lives from the lives that my wife and I live. My wife and I were each others' first love, while Harry and Sally have had many other loves in their lives. In spite of that, there is so much with which Steph and I can identify in this movie. What man does not watch as Harry deconstructs men to Sally and nod in some sort of familiarity? What person doesn't look at this couple and see so much humanity? True, there is an idyllic quality that permeates so much of Nora Ephron's (screenwriter=she also wrote "Sleepless in Seattle" and "You've Got Mail") work. New York always looks down right pastoral in her work. But in spite of the fanciful nature of the New York we are given, the film is grounded in a lot of reality.
New Year's Eve plays an important role in this movie for several reasons. The ending of the movie is set on New Year's Eve. The fact that both Harry and Sally find it necessary to have someone to be with on New Year's Eve speaks to the yearning that most people have for companionship. Steph and I have returned to this film several times over the years, both because it makes us laugh, and it warms our hearts. This is truly a romantic comedy for adults. It speaks frankly about the differences between male and female sexuality. Yet again, the fact that the characters in this movie have different baggage from me does not detract from its impact. The most famous scene of the movie (to those of you who have not seen it, I will not give it away---but you'll know which scene it is when it happens) is completely preposterous, but it makes a point in an uproarious way. Men and women approach sex and sexuality differently. Whether the differences come from evolution, creation, or simply social conditioning is beside the point. The point remains that there are differences, and they are a source of frustration, humor and exhilaration.
Maybe Steph and I will watch this movie tonight. The movie brilliantly weaves in interviews of older couples (some who have been married for many years) reflecting on their respective courtships. These interviews act as parentheses to the story of Harry and Sally. I think that these couples represent the kind of relationship for which Harry and Sally (and maybe all of us) yearn. Both Harry and Sally are not at peace. They attempt to find companionship in other ways and places, but in the end they only seem to find the companionship that they want in each other. New Year's Eve provides a fitting back drop to that, as so many reflect on the past and look to the future. I will gladly spend the waning hours of 2011 with my wife of almost 12 years, and I will look forward with hope to what the 13th year will bring.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
It's a Wonderful Life
This is one of the most complicated movies I have ever seen. At first glance, it doesn't seem that way. It pops every year at Christmas time, and the advertisements always play up its sentimentality. The ending of the film certainly has that element, and it should not be overlooked. But what the ads do not tell us is how dark this movie is, and how paradoxical its protagonist is.
For the few of you out there who have not seen this classic tale, here's a brief summary:
Meet George Bailey (James Stewart). He is a husband and father of 4. He lives in a big, old, drafty house on the edge of the small town of Bedford Falls. His wife (Donna Reed) has been refurbishing the old house for years. In his view, he has never made a choice in his life that he wanted to make. He had to stay home rather than travel because his father passed away and he had to settle affairs with the family business. After that, he had to give up going to college so he could keep the family business going. After that, he gets married almost against his will, due to finally acknowledging his love for Mary. After that, children come along, and his dreams of traveling and building skyscrapers are taken from him. When the family business and his life are in jeopardy due to a clerical error at work, all of the choices he hasn't had over the years come to a head, and he becomes so depressed over the state of his life that he contemplates suicide so that the family can be saved on his life insurance policy. Enter Clarence the Angel. Clarence saves George from his suicide attempt and then shows him his hometown as it would have been if he had never been born.
This is the hook of the movie. The ending is one of the emotional zeniths of the film pantheon, as George Bailey realizes he does have a wonderful life. What makes the movie complicated to me is how selfish and full of rage George Bailey is. This is easy to gloss over as we come to the end. However, if the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, Mary Bailey may want to hire a therapist for her husband. As a husband and father who has had to deal with my own share of shifting ground and changing priorities, I can identify with some of George's pain. But when he is willing to take his own life, going nuts and smashing his models in front of his kids, there is a tension and a disturbance that is rare in movies. There is a harsh reality to this movie. In spite of the happy ending, George Bailey still will have to deal with an unfulfilling career and a life where many of his visions go unfulfilled. Christmas brings him a shallow hope, as the charity of the Yuletide saves him, and his community rallies around him. As a viewer, I hope that this spiritual experience he has had will catapult him out of his resentment, but the real world calls to all of us, and we know very well he may have times when life catches up with him again.
For those of us who use this time of year to celebrate the birth of Christ, we know that Christmas is more than a family time, or a time to remember what is important in life. In fact, for many, this time of year does not bring happiness, but it can bring hope. It is a time we can remember that God came in the flesh into a horribly screwed up world, and gave us reason for hope. He never claimed he would fix everything, and he never claimed he would make life easy. Instead, he walked through life as a human being, watched close friends and family suffer and die, saw almost everyone he loved abandon him, and took upon himself all of our sin and wrong doing. As he left this earth, he promised to walk through life with us and chisel away at our hard hearts until we are made more like Him. God uses communities like Bedford Falls to help people through hard times. I have no doubt that communities are a great gift to us all. But beyond that, there lies the central message that Christians observe each year. We reflect on this crazy story about a child born in Bethlehem who grew up to say some radical stuff. What we do with Him, His life, and all of his teachings (not just the ones we like), is important. If there is indeed a hope in this world that seems so forsaken by God at times, it is the notion that God left his supposed distant existence. In leaving his place in heaven, he suffered the injustices of this world for which we often blame Him. He also walked among others who suffered. He loved them, and offered Himself to them. In a world devoid of hope comes this person. Into Bedford Falls comes a presence that dwells on a different plain than money, wars, civic squabbles, family, and greed.
I wonder what George Bailey would think about that.
For the few of you out there who have not seen this classic tale, here's a brief summary:
Meet George Bailey (James Stewart). He is a husband and father of 4. He lives in a big, old, drafty house on the edge of the small town of Bedford Falls. His wife (Donna Reed) has been refurbishing the old house for years. In his view, he has never made a choice in his life that he wanted to make. He had to stay home rather than travel because his father passed away and he had to settle affairs with the family business. After that, he had to give up going to college so he could keep the family business going. After that, he gets married almost against his will, due to finally acknowledging his love for Mary. After that, children come along, and his dreams of traveling and building skyscrapers are taken from him. When the family business and his life are in jeopardy due to a clerical error at work, all of the choices he hasn't had over the years come to a head, and he becomes so depressed over the state of his life that he contemplates suicide so that the family can be saved on his life insurance policy. Enter Clarence the Angel. Clarence saves George from his suicide attempt and then shows him his hometown as it would have been if he had never been born.
This is the hook of the movie. The ending is one of the emotional zeniths of the film pantheon, as George Bailey realizes he does have a wonderful life. What makes the movie complicated to me is how selfish and full of rage George Bailey is. This is easy to gloss over as we come to the end. However, if the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, Mary Bailey may want to hire a therapist for her husband. As a husband and father who has had to deal with my own share of shifting ground and changing priorities, I can identify with some of George's pain. But when he is willing to take his own life, going nuts and smashing his models in front of his kids, there is a tension and a disturbance that is rare in movies. There is a harsh reality to this movie. In spite of the happy ending, George Bailey still will have to deal with an unfulfilling career and a life where many of his visions go unfulfilled. Christmas brings him a shallow hope, as the charity of the Yuletide saves him, and his community rallies around him. As a viewer, I hope that this spiritual experience he has had will catapult him out of his resentment, but the real world calls to all of us, and we know very well he may have times when life catches up with him again.
For those of us who use this time of year to celebrate the birth of Christ, we know that Christmas is more than a family time, or a time to remember what is important in life. In fact, for many, this time of year does not bring happiness, but it can bring hope. It is a time we can remember that God came in the flesh into a horribly screwed up world, and gave us reason for hope. He never claimed he would fix everything, and he never claimed he would make life easy. Instead, he walked through life as a human being, watched close friends and family suffer and die, saw almost everyone he loved abandon him, and took upon himself all of our sin and wrong doing. As he left this earth, he promised to walk through life with us and chisel away at our hard hearts until we are made more like Him. God uses communities like Bedford Falls to help people through hard times. I have no doubt that communities are a great gift to us all. But beyond that, there lies the central message that Christians observe each year. We reflect on this crazy story about a child born in Bethlehem who grew up to say some radical stuff. What we do with Him, His life, and all of his teachings (not just the ones we like), is important. If there is indeed a hope in this world that seems so forsaken by God at times, it is the notion that God left his supposed distant existence. In leaving his place in heaven, he suffered the injustices of this world for which we often blame Him. He also walked among others who suffered. He loved them, and offered Himself to them. In a world devoid of hope comes this person. Into Bedford Falls comes a presence that dwells on a different plain than money, wars, civic squabbles, family, and greed.
I wonder what George Bailey would think about that.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Love Actually
One of the things I have trouble admitting to people is how much I like "All I Want for Christmas Is You", by Mariah Carey. When I think about it, there is very little about the song I should like. It is drivel. It is cotton candy. It is completely devoid of depth. But I like the song very much. I rock out to it ever friggin' time I hear it. Maybe "Love Actually" has something to do with why I like it. This movie depends on evocation of a lot of nostalgia, and music taps into our sense of nostalgia. Steph and I first saw this movie 8 years ago. We attended a screening of it at a theater that had special screenings for parents with children. We enjoyed it then (adult content and all), and we watch it every year in December. It is a patchwork of many stories all designed to give the viewer a spectrum of what love is and how different people experience it as Christmas approaches. But it is also a comedy, and there are some riotous moments.
There are so many stories in the film that the viewer inevitably ends up clinging to one over others. For Steph and I, our favorite story line is one of the sad ones. Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson play a married couple who have a very comfortable, familiar and loving relationship. Rickman's character begins receiving explicit advances from a young lady at work. He does not run the other way, and what comes of his crisis makes up the story of the two of them. It is fair to say that these two outstanding actors could breathe life into the phone book, but their work here is extraordinary because of its truth.
The movie is not perfect. There is at least one story line that I find a waste of time (ask me if you are interested). Another storyline involves two adult film doubles who make small talk while performing scenes naked. In spite of the ribald nature of their scenes, the ultimate effect is actually quaint, as later they are shy about even kissing on a date, even though they have been doing much more exotic things while "working". The funniest story line is the one that opens the film. Rock icon Billy Mac is recording a horrible Christmas song, and his plot line follows his attempt to make this single a hit. Anyone who knows anything about rock history will find a lot to laugh at in this portrayal of an oversexed, strung out aging rock star. The most poignant story is the one involving Laura Linney. Laura Linney brings amazing talent to any work she does, and here she portrays a woman in love whose desire to pursue her wishes keeps being interrupted by a complication. Another plot line involves Hugh Grant as the Prime Minister, who must come to terms with the attraction he feels for a young woman who works for him at 10 Downey Street. All of these stories are played out over a London at Christmas which seems more like a small town than one of the largest cities in the world. That is part of the movie's charm. It feels intimate and close, and it truly makes the viewer feel warm, even though some of the story lines seemingly only exist for the purpose of getting laughs or dabbling in comical sex.
The truth that shines though in the movie is what brings Steph and I back, as well as the laughs. Love is a complicated thing, and sometimes pursuing what we think is love hurts those we love the most. It is always important to remember that the greatest love is self sacrificial-something which is lost on some of these characters, though not on all of them.
There are so many stories in the film that the viewer inevitably ends up clinging to one over others. For Steph and I, our favorite story line is one of the sad ones. Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson play a married couple who have a very comfortable, familiar and loving relationship. Rickman's character begins receiving explicit advances from a young lady at work. He does not run the other way, and what comes of his crisis makes up the story of the two of them. It is fair to say that these two outstanding actors could breathe life into the phone book, but their work here is extraordinary because of its truth.
The movie is not perfect. There is at least one story line that I find a waste of time (ask me if you are interested). Another storyline involves two adult film doubles who make small talk while performing scenes naked. In spite of the ribald nature of their scenes, the ultimate effect is actually quaint, as later they are shy about even kissing on a date, even though they have been doing much more exotic things while "working". The funniest story line is the one that opens the film. Rock icon Billy Mac is recording a horrible Christmas song, and his plot line follows his attempt to make this single a hit. Anyone who knows anything about rock history will find a lot to laugh at in this portrayal of an oversexed, strung out aging rock star. The most poignant story is the one involving Laura Linney. Laura Linney brings amazing talent to any work she does, and here she portrays a woman in love whose desire to pursue her wishes keeps being interrupted by a complication. Another plot line involves Hugh Grant as the Prime Minister, who must come to terms with the attraction he feels for a young woman who works for him at 10 Downey Street. All of these stories are played out over a London at Christmas which seems more like a small town than one of the largest cities in the world. That is part of the movie's charm. It feels intimate and close, and it truly makes the viewer feel warm, even though some of the story lines seemingly only exist for the purpose of getting laughs or dabbling in comical sex.
The truth that shines though in the movie is what brings Steph and I back, as well as the laughs. Love is a complicated thing, and sometimes pursuing what we think is love hurts those we love the most. It is always important to remember that the greatest love is self sacrificial-something which is lost on some of these characters, though not on all of them.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Elf
What a lovable piece of fluff this is! I was prompted to revisit it by my cousin, and it came up in some other conversation as well with a good friend on Facebook. After watching it, I instantly began incorporating a favorite line ("You sit on a throne of lies") into my daily conversation. This is, after all, what I do. I take amusing lines from pop culture and try to make myself look cool through random quotations throughout my day. It's a good life.
The plot involves a young man (Will Ferrell) who was left at an orphanage as an infant, and ends up being adopted by an elf in Santa's workshop (you see, the little guy crawls into Santa's gift bag on Christmas Eve and finds himself at the North Pole). Buddy the elf's adopted father (Bob Newhart) finally breaks the news to his son that Buddy is not an elf, but a human. Santa and Buddy's dad reveal the identity of Buddy's biological father. He is an executive who works in the Empire State Building (James Caan), and he is on the "naughty list." As Buddy tries to navigate living in New York, he is helped by Jovie (Zoey Deschanel), a reluctant department store elf who finds herself charmed by this childlike man who comes from the North Pole. Together, they must find a solution to a growing energy crisis: since so few people believe in Santa anymore, his sleigh (being powered by Christmas Spirit, of course) isn't working like it used to.
The movie works because it is funny. The fish out of water story works, and Will Ferrell brings the kind of devotion to the character that kind of reminds me of Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein. He dives into this role. With that in mind, one either likes Will Ferrell's brand of humor or doesn't. I have always been a fan of his, so I like the humor here. His style is over the top, but still PG rated, so I could watch it with the kids. The boys loved the prolonged belch at the table (some things seem to be ingrained), and all of the kids loved the fanciful story.
It is nice to have another entertaining holiday film in the arsenal. Does it represent everything that I think this time of year represents? Of course it doesn't. But it does have a cuteness to it that is charming, it has Bob Newhart in an Elf suit, it features NYC at Christmas, and it's got some great one liners. In short, it is worth seeing for its laughs and its mood. Enjoy :)
The plot involves a young man (Will Ferrell) who was left at an orphanage as an infant, and ends up being adopted by an elf in Santa's workshop (you see, the little guy crawls into Santa's gift bag on Christmas Eve and finds himself at the North Pole). Buddy the elf's adopted father (Bob Newhart) finally breaks the news to his son that Buddy is not an elf, but a human. Santa and Buddy's dad reveal the identity of Buddy's biological father. He is an executive who works in the Empire State Building (James Caan), and he is on the "naughty list." As Buddy tries to navigate living in New York, he is helped by Jovie (Zoey Deschanel), a reluctant department store elf who finds herself charmed by this childlike man who comes from the North Pole. Together, they must find a solution to a growing energy crisis: since so few people believe in Santa anymore, his sleigh (being powered by Christmas Spirit, of course) isn't working like it used to.
The movie works because it is funny. The fish out of water story works, and Will Ferrell brings the kind of devotion to the character that kind of reminds me of Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein. He dives into this role. With that in mind, one either likes Will Ferrell's brand of humor or doesn't. I have always been a fan of his, so I like the humor here. His style is over the top, but still PG rated, so I could watch it with the kids. The boys loved the prolonged belch at the table (some things seem to be ingrained), and all of the kids loved the fanciful story.
It is nice to have another entertaining holiday film in the arsenal. Does it represent everything that I think this time of year represents? Of course it doesn't. But it does have a cuteness to it that is charming, it has Bob Newhart in an Elf suit, it features NYC at Christmas, and it's got some great one liners. In short, it is worth seeing for its laughs and its mood. Enjoy :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)