In Memory of Roger Ebert

I must say that I would be remiss if I did not at least mention Roger Ebert's death on my blog.  I read him quite regularly my entire adult life, and I remember my mom and dad watching "Gene and Roger" back when I was a child when Siskel and Ebert had a show on PBS.  I disagreed and agreed with his writings, as is the case with any writer's opinion.  At the same time, much of his writings and many of his ideas about movies have stuck with me though the years.  I remember how much I respected his thoughts on Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ, even though I was not a big fan of that film.  He understood the point the film was trying to make, and respected it as a work of art, even though he seems to have left behind his Catholic faith (or so it seemed to me in his writings).  I always felt that even though I was just reading his reviews, I was sort of having a conversation with him, and much of his writing ended up sharpening my own ability to observe movies.

He wrote many things that stuck with me, but nothing he ever wrote stuck with me more than this quote, and it has become my philosophy of movie watching as well:

"It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it."

Friends with Kids

In the interest of full disclosure, this movie would be offensive to many of my more conservative readers.  It is rated R for a reason.  It has lots of bad language, and features a scene of a couple watching an adult film, and in the scene, a couple of shots of what they are watching are shown.  Was it necessary to the movie to show the video clip?  I think not, but since art itself is unnecessary, the greater question has to be does this film work and does it have something to say?  To that question, the answer is an emphatic yes.  This is one of the best romantic comedies I have seen in years.  It seems to owe a lot to Nora Ephron/Rob Reiner's "When Harry Met Sally", but it has its own voice, as so much of the content of the film deals with the realities of what happens when couples who are friends begin having children.  The last scene of the movie can be almost compared frame by frame to the last scene of "When Harry Met Sally", but the dialogue of the scene in this film is much rougher, and I think that it captures something about where we have journeyed sexually as a culture since 1989, the year that "When Harry Met Sally" was released. 

Julie and Jason (Jennifer Westfeldt and Adam Scott) are best friends.  They have a platonic relationship which has lasted for almost 20 years.  They are friends with two other couples, Ben and Missy (Jon Hamm and Kristen Wiig) and Alex and Leslie (Chris O'Dowd and Maya Rudolph).  At the beginning of the movie, the six of them are out to dinner in their Manhattan habitat, and they all see a family across the restaurant with squirmy kids.  As a couple of them loudly protest the presence of the children in the restaurant, Alex and Leslie sheepishly break the news to all at the table that they are expecting a child.  The film quickly flashes forward 4 years to show the lives of these 6 after children have entered the picture.  Now, not only do Alex and Leslie have kids, but so do Ben and Missy.  As Julie and Jason make their way all the way out to Brooklyn for a birthday party for Alex ($45 cab fare), we see a new reality.  Alex and Leslie are at each other's throats about sharing the load of parenting, while Ben and Missy are downright hostile toward each other.  Julie and Jason like kids and want to have them themselves, but they do not want the future that they see before them.  So they concoct a plan to conceive a child together, then raise the child while maintaining their separate lives. 

Since this is a romantic comedy, there is a certain predictability to the ending, but it says something about the quality of this movie that I wasn't sure exactly how this movie would end.  However, it stays true to form while making some true statements along the way.  The strongest piece of writing to me was the way Jennifer Westfeldt (who wrote, produced and directed this movie on top of starring in it) contrasts the marriages of Julie and Jason's best friends.  While Alex and Leslie's marriage encounters challenges, it is clear that they love each other, and that foundation allows them to see the worst in the partner and still stay together.  Meanwhile, the picture of Ben and Missy is one where the fireworks of their relationship do not last because they don't actually like each other that much.  Once things get difficult, they are at each other's throats.  These two pictures give Julie and Jason something with which they can grapple, as they become parents and have to deal with the complex consequences of how they chose to become parents.

In the end, the movie rises above being a run of the mill romantic comedy because it has a lot of things to say about relationships and how children change everything.     Jason especially has some big things to learn, and sometimes what needs to be learned is that your best friend can also be your life long partner.  As I watched this movie with my life long partner, I saw a lot of truth.  It is amazing where you can find profound truth sometimes.

My Fair Lady

This is a classic movie musical that I discovered many years ago.  And since the first time I watched this movie involves my late father, it takes on even more interesting dimensions.  Some years back, I watched this movie for the first time with my girlfriend Stephanie.  I was still living with my parents at the time, so Stephanie and I sat on my bedroom floor, put "My Fair Lady" on, and sat and watched.  As the movie progresses, Henry Higgins' heart begins to soften toward the rough around the edges Eliza Doolittle.  During one of the moments in which this was becoming clear, my dad told me that he walked by my room.  As he watched his grown son sitting next to his girlfriend, he thought it slightly funny and appropriate that we were watching a movie together about a man who was letting someone in to his solitary world.  He couldn't help but find it appropriate, and also a little poignant.  Up to that point, I had never had a girlfriend, had been independent and happy, until this new person came into my life and changed everything.  Dad loved Stephanie and always thought she was perfect for me.  I can't see this movie without thinking of that first time I watched it with my girlfriend Steph.

The film is full of memorable tunes as well as biting and cynical humor.  Linguist Henry Higgins is a confirmed bachelor, and he sees any involvement with women as utterly repugnant.  At a performance one night in Covent Garden, he happens upon fellow linguist Colonel Pickering, and they discover street urchin Eliza Doolittle.   Higgins wagers Pickering that within a matter of weeks, he could transform this street urchin into a refined lady, one who he could even pass off as a high society lady at a ball.  As Pickering takes the bet, Higgins is forced to prove himself.  All the while, Eliza's freeloading and oafish (but all the while clever) father Alfie finds ways to take advantage of Higgins' wealth.

The film gives us many unique moments.  Perhaps the most unique aspect of the film is the style Rex Harrison used to "sing" his numbers.  If there were some sort of category for turn of century British rap, Harrison's performance may fit that category.  His "singing" is unique, and it bolsters his characters' curmudgeonly nature.  Audrey Hepburn's Eliza Doolittle is not her greatest role, but she makes her character sympathetic and lovable.  Above it all hovers the wonderful melodies of this musical.  "The Street Where You Live" somehow manages to be an extremely evocative piece of music, even though the song has an absurd premise.  Other wonderful melodies and witty barbs follow throughout the film.  But, in the end, the admittance by Higgins that he has "Grown Accustomed to Her (Eliza's) Face" is the heart of the movie.  Men do love companionship, no matter what they say.

So as I reflect anew on my first viewing of this classic, I am brought again back to my dad and one of the many good memories of him.  After more than 13  years of marriage to Steph, I have more than merely grown accustomed to her.  Instead, I love every moment I have with her.  And even though I never got a chance to ask dad this for sure, I have a feeling that when he glimpsed Steph and I watching this movie together, he knew that I had found someone perfect for me.  I had moved on from being independent into a different realm. 

Dr. No

I finally did it...I finally watched a Sean Connery James Bond movie.  This is only my third James Bond movie.  This is part of my father's legacy, as he didn't like James Bond, and therefore I grew up not having anything to do with Bond.  He never forbade it, but since he had no interest in the films, I just never saw any of them.  The first Bond film I watched was "Goldeneye" with Pierce Brosnan.  I was in my 20's at that point, so I had waited quite awhile before my first Bond film.  In that case, I couldn't understand the Bond fuss, though I had heard that the Brosnan Bond movies weren't the best ones.  Fast forward to recently, when I watched "Casino Royale", and I actually reviewed it here on this blog.  Click the movie title to go to that review if you wish.  I was impressed by that movie, yet the two Bond actors who star in the most films (Sean Connery and Roger Moore) had still alluded me.  So, last week, not only did I finally watch a Sean Connery Bond film, but the original one.  "Dr. No" was the first James Bond film, and one can see many of the elements of the mythology coming together this early.  I went into this movie expecting it to be a corny, cheesy no brain movie.  Instead, I was actually pretty impressed with it, and I had a better idea as to why this film franchise can work pretty well.  I say "can" work pretty well because even friends of mine who are Bond movie fans will readily admit that the quality of these movies varies a lot.

When I watched this movie, I saw an engaging spy caper.  While Bond does cast off women with frightening ease, I still found a lot more substance to his character then I suspected I would.  I have also always heard that one of the benchmarks of the best Bond films is the quality of the villain.  While I have little to compare this villain to (the villain in "Casino Royale" was great), the villain Dr. No is great.  The best decision the director made in this movie was to keep the villain off the screen for most of the film.  There is one scene when all the viewer experiences is the menacing sound of his voice, as Dr. No deals with a subordinate who has not done his job properly.

In the center of it all, the essence of cool, is Sean Connery.  One can see very easily why this film launched a franchise.  His character is both macho but also vulnerable in his own way.  I always thought that when I finally arrived at a Connery Bond film that he would be impervious to emotion and threats to his physical well being.  Instead, we see a multi dimensional character here.  As other Bond films follow, we come to learn why James Bond cannot afford to attach himself to any life or any woman.  His job is so high risk that attachments are an impossibility.  Of course this leads to a litany of buxom women which can't resist the man, but I digress.

The plot is somewhat standard.  Dr. No is trying to dominate the world, and Bond is trying to stop him.  Along the way, Bond has several people helping him, and some people who turn on him.  This is all standard plot stuff, but it is done effectively and attractively.  More than anything, I think what I appreciated about this movie was that it represents the Bond mythology at a high point.  As I delve more into the Bond films, I'm sure I will be shown even more clearly why this one is so good.  In any case, this was a good movie, and to see Sean Connery in this role that made him famous felt like a small rite of passage in my movie viewing life. 

Best Actor?

My obsessive fair-mindedness keeps me from being too critical of the Oscar winners, since I have not seen all of the movies which were nominated for Best Picture.  Also, I did not see all the performances which were nominated in the acting categories.  Of the 9 nominated films this year, I have only seen 3: "Lincoln", "Les Miserables" and "Zero Dark Thirty."  The other 6 films will be on my Netflix queue, and I look forward to seeing all of them.

There was one oversight, however, about which I have an opinion, and I have shared it with my wife constantly since Sunday night.  My vote for best actor would have gone to Hugh Jackman over Daniel Day Lewis in a heart beat.  I say this for two main reasons.  First, since we all know that there is no objective measurement of acting greatness, the Oscar sometimes becomes symbolic, or a way to honor certain kinds of work.  In that light, since Daniel Day Lewis has already won two Oscars for best actor, the academy passed up an opportunity to honor a special kind of performance.  They missed this opportunity when they gave Daniel Day Lewis an Oscar for his fine work in "Lincoln."  Now, I have not seen the other 3 performances that were nominated.  Bradley Cooper, Joaquin Phoenix and Denzel Washington are all fine actors, and I am sure that their work was worthy of an award as well.  However, my question to Academy voters would be this...why does Daniel Day Lewis automatically win this award?  He has now won an Oscar for his last two performances...should we simply assume that he will win each time he makes a film, or did the cool beard and stove pipe hat hypnotize the voters into such a trance that an unprecedented third best Oscar simply was the only choice?

Second, it is my contention that Hugh Jackman's work deserved the award because his was the harder performance, and it was more uniquely suited to him.  Another way to put it would be this: Hugh Jackman could have played Lincoln, but Daniel Day Lewis could not have played Jean Valjean.  The unique achievement of Hugh Jackman in "Les Miserables"should not have been overlooked as it was.  Daniel Day Lewis' work was outstanding, but it was not unique.  Many actors have been enveloped by an historic figure.  This has required them to change their appearance, voice, and "become" that figure.  To be fair, there is no question that when I saw "Lincoln", I felt that I was watching Abraham Lincoln.  Day Lewis' true gift in the role was somehow to take what I would have imagined Lincoln to be like and somehow capture that on screen.  This is great work.  But Hugh Jackman not only does the same thing with his role, but his entire role is sung!  I once heard a writer say that one can never compare Babe Ruth to anyone else in baseball history because he was not only one of the greatest hitters of all time, but also one of the all time great pitchers.  As such, his talents are unique in baseball history.  In the best actor category this year, there is simply no comparison to the work that Hugh Jackman did.  Not only did he sing his entire role, but he sang it all live.  None of the performances seen on screen (save one) were prerecorded, and every moment of the performance feels fresh and as if Jackman had never spoken the words before.

Sometimes one gets the feeling that the voters have already made up their mind, based either on preconceived notions of greatness or on the desire to hear certain someone's acceptance speech.  It was a lapse in judgement on the academy's part to overlook a performance this year that was not only great, but also completely unique in the history of movie making.  "Les Miserables" as a whole was a unique experiment in movie making, and I don't think it got the accolades it deserved.  Maybe once I see the other 6 movies on the Best Picture list, I will feel differently.  However, even if I feel differently about the film as a whole, Jackman's performance outshone Daniel Day Lewis, and I was disappointed to not see that reflected on Oscar night.

Mao's Last Dancer

This is a movie in which the elements of the story that it tells are its greatest strength.  The story itself is somewhat standard, but the context of the story gives the story tremendous drama.  Even though it is a classic "against all odds kind of story", there is a lot more to this movie.  This movie's setting is what gives it power.

Chi Cao is a young boy who lives in a rural part of China.  During his boyhood, he is picked by government officials to be taken to Beijing and be trained in the discipline of ballet.  His mother and father, given no choice in the matter, watch him go, not knowing when they might see him again.  As a young man, he has become a fine dancer, due to his tenacity and drive.  He is noticed by an English ballet director who is working in Houston.  Chi is allowed to go to America to pursue dance.  While he is in America, things get complicated, in spite of the government agents warning warning him of the dangers in the American influence.

Again, what makes the film work is the context.  The cultural clashes faced by Chi Cao are what makes the movie effective.  We all know of the differences between Capitalism and Communism, but to see them depicted before us on the screen does make a difference.  As Chi Cao has before him the choice to pursue his own happiness, he is forced to contemplate that principle next to the principle that his worth is to be found in the collective of China.  This is a classic conflict of individual versus community, and it plays out very well on the screen.  Some of the most effective moments of the film depict the emotional turmoil for Chi Cao as he is forced to decide between the country and culture of his youth and this new culture in which he is honeymooning.  In one scene, Chi Cao watches in amazement as a man with whom he is socializing openly expresses how much he hates the president.  Chi Cao expresses fear for his acquaintance, since he has had the audacity to criticize a member of government.

The movie's weakness to me resided in the fact that some of the communist officials  came off as a bit of a caricature.  Granted, I have never lived in a communist country, so the depictions may be right on.  It just seemed as though the depictions were a bit broad.  As such, the story is somewhat black and white, while I suspect the reality is more gray.  At the same time, the basic freedoms I take for granted are indeed wonderful to have.  But again, my assumption is that personal liberty is the be all end all, rather than the collective good.  This movie depicts this struggle quite well.  Though it is made by westerners, I feel that it shows a certain context to the Chinese way of life that is somewhat sympathetic.  The film's emotional climax is made all the more real due to the world that the film depicts.

The performances in the movie are all great.  Bruce Beresford, the film's director, has quietly presided over several fine films ("Tender Mercies", "Driving Miss Daisy", "Evelyn").  These films all do a wonderful job of capturing small human drama.  They are not epics, but they are able to find a lot of grand meaning in small events.  The events in life for one or two people can show us something about all of us.  This movie does that very well, as the longings of one man (for freedom, love and family) are shown on the screen.

Groundhog Day Theology

I had quite a few hits on my article about Groundhog Day.  A friend of mine from church shared this article about the movie with me...it's quite good.


http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-03-012-v