Thursday, January 30, 2003

MOVIE CLUB: (NO) CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND AND MORE (3)
From: Adam
To: Sam and Eric
Subject: Had enough of Hitler

Thanks guys for finding the time to post and get the discussion(s) going. In addition to my hellish excursion to the DMV trying to get Illinois license plates, I've been at home with a sick 10-month-old and busy getting ready for my weekend jaunt to Ft. Lauderdale to "work" at the NHL All-Star Game. No, I'm not prostituting myself. I put work in quotes because watching hockey and interviewing athletes isn't really work. I leave Friday morning and don't return until Monday night, so I don't expect to have a new post up until Tuesday.

I should probably start by following through on my promise to discuss 'Max' and 'The Pianist,' even though the two of you have yet to see either. There is, of course, an interesting connection between the two films in that 'The Pianist' is about the effect of Adolf Hitler's ambition and hatred, while 'Max' attempts to show us the cause -- or, at least, the beginnings -- of his ambition and hatred. The trait that makes 'The Pianist' such an amazing experience is precisely what makes 'Max' a mostly forgettable one; namely, Roman Polanski allows the harrowing subject matter -- the true story of famed Polish pianist Wladyslaw Szpilman's (Adrien Brody) evasion of the Nazi's in the Warsaw ghetto -- to speak for itself, while 'Max' director Menno Meyjes can't avoid mucking things up with melodrama, essentially reducing the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust to a missed encounter between a bitter, struggling artist named Adolf Hitler (Noah Taylor) and his Jewish mentor/art dealer Max Rothman (John Cusack).

Premiere's Glenn Kenny articulates my point much better than I could in his take on 'The Pianist': "Reporting from Cannes last May, a misguided Hollywood Reporter correspondent complained of this film that it “recounts its tales of horror and triumph, but never makes the viewer experience them.” In a way, I must agree with Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt; the cinema is indeed an insufficient instrument for making one experience the humiliation, oppression, and terror of life in the Warsaw ghetto during World War II. I should expect that one might be grateful for that. I only cite this comment because it is the most boneheaded out of many boneheaded things that have been said about this masterful film-a more common (and really, when you get right down to it, more hateful) snipe is that this whole, you know, Holocaust theme has been cinematically done, you know, to death. Jeez, I can't figure out how some people think. But such displays of ignorance, aside from being frightening, underscore just how necessary this film's existence is."

I wasn't surprised to learn that Kirk Honeycutt reacted to the film in that way, feeling like it was lacking some kind of emotional resonance, because I, too, was struck by how Polanski never tries to up the emotional ante of the story. There are no scenes of Szpilman longing for his family members who were sent to the concentration camps, or any heart-warming reunions; no final scenes of closure such as we find in Spielberg's 'Schindler's List' between Liam Neeson and Ben Kingsley. Like Kenny, however, I think Honeycutt missed the point of the film completely. 'The Pianist' is about survival, and Polanski quite meticulously and gracefully shows how Szpilman miraculously manages to do just that. Maybe Honeycutt has been so brainwashed by Hollywood that he needs a heroic score and sentimental speeches to feel something, but simply watching a woman (unsuccessfully) trying to find water for her baby before being loaded onto the trains, or watching Nazi soldiers randomly pull a group of Jews out of a lineup and shoot them in the head, was enough for me to feel the horror. Adrien Brody is amazing as Szpilman, matching Polanski's subtlety note for note. It's also worth pointing out that Brody and Polanski believably pull off Szpilman's piano playing without a lot of editing or trick photography. It really looks like Brody is fingering every note, which adds another layer of authenticity to the story. (For the opposite effect, see Woody Allen's 'Sweet and Lowdown,' where Sean Penn's guitar playing is so obviously fake that it becomes an unbearable distraction.)

I had a number of problems with 'Max' and to speed up the proceedings a bit I'm afraid I'm just going to have to catalog the major flaws one by one. 1) John Cusack's accent, or lack thereof: why is it that every German in the film speaks English with a German-flavored accent, while Cusack talks like the Chicago-born guy that he is? Did the filmmakers somehow think that Cusack is such a wonderful, big-time actor that audiences would buy him -- nay, prefer him -- to speak in his normal tongue? Not me. 2) The ending: without giving away anything too specific, Meyjes wants us to believe -- and I'm speaking here of the movie world, not the real world -- that the young Hitler's political ascension began only after he missed his shot at art stardom. But even though Rothman finally does praise Hitler's work near the end, Meyjes makes it explicitly clear that Hitler really isn't that good. He's lazy, unemotional, and he more or less just mimics artists who have come before him. So even though he does finally get inspired by his desire to return Germany to its past glory, I was never convinced that his work would withstand more than one or two showings before being dismissed and forgotten. 3) Did I mention the ending?: Meyjes rips off Coppola's Baptism sequence in 'The Godfather' by intercutting a rousing anti-Semitic speech by Hitler with Rothman and his family worshipping at their synagogue. The juxtaposition of the soothing Jewish chants with Hitler's terrible wailing is effective. The problem is that Rothman's faith has never been a significant issue leading up to this point. He is a Jew, yes, but not a devout one, which makes the sequence feel forced. The conflict inherent in Hitler's hatred for the Jews, but apparent regard for Rothman, isn't sufficiently explored enough to give the juxtaposition at the end any real power.

For what it's worth, I seem to be in the minority here. I suppose I am crazy for criticizing any film with this line of dialogue: "Hitler, come on, I'll buy you a lemonade." I'll have some comments on your posts and 'Confessions' before I take off tomorrow.

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
MOVIE CLUB: (NO) CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND AND MORE (2)
From: Sam
To: Adam and Eric (and readers)
Subject: City of God, Oceans 11 and Adaptation re-examined

As an unredeemed movie geek who currently has Godard’s “Breathless” waiting at home in a Netflix envelope, I still have trouble going out of my way to see foreign films and documentaries in the theatre. Continued exposure to films like the recently released “City of God” should help cure me of that. If not the very best film I’ve seen in the (extended) 2002 movie season, it is certainly one of the most successfully ambitious. Ambitious in its huge, sprawling canvas; its huge cast; and its stylish visuals, the film succeeds on every level. And more importantly, it never lets details get lost under the sheer weight of the story (which covers 15+ years and introduces 30 or so characters). In a nut shell, the film tells the incredible true story of a boy coming of age in a Brazilian ghetto. Rife with violence, drugs and gang-warfare, the eponymous City of God is a South American urban nightmare. The directors take an unflinching portrait of the place, which makes for some exceedingly unpleasant scenes; but the film is also hugely entertaining. Apparently the cast is made up largely of non-actors, residents of the actual City of God, but for the most part you’d never know it. The lead actors who emerge in the latter parts of the film are wonderfully subtle and charismatic. If the film has any flaw, it’s that it is occasionally too flashy (the co-directors come from a music video/advertising background, and it shows), but this is far outweighed by the detail they bring to even the most secondary characters. See it if you can. Or write it down and rent it when it’s released on DVD.

On other notes: I’ve been bad. Still haven’t seen “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind.” Adam’s thoughts mirror my expectations. We’ll see. I think I’m comfortably pessimistic, which could result in a pleasant surprise when I finally do see it (definitely this weekend). Something else that Adam raised: films that disappointed in the theater that, under re-examination, turned into favorites. Adam chose one of my best examples: “Oceans 11.” My expectations were through the roof when I saw it in the theatre, and I found it superficial and jokey. Eight months later I saw it on an airplane and found myself laughing out loud. The following week I bough it on DVD and I’ve seen it since (at least in parts) a couple more times. It gets better every time I see it. It’s loose and fun and has a great supporting cast. (I could definitely do without Brad Pitt, but he’s a minor distraction). I completely agree with Adam on this one. It’s hard to think of another film that fits this criteria—mostly because if I didn’t like it in the theater I’m not going to go out of my way to see it on DVD—but there are several films that I liked enough in the theatre to see again and, upon seeing them again (and in some cases, again and again and again) became even better (“Get Shorty” gets better every time I see it—you’ve got to see it again for Gene Hackman’s performance alone; and I didn’t love “Rushmore” until I saw it for the third time).

I finally saw “Unfaithful.” A strange, masochistic experience with a weak opening 20 minutes and a brilliant second act (OK, the second half of the second act is brilliant—assuming there are three acts). Diane Lane is good, but she couldn’t possibly live up to the expectations that had been set—critics have been calling her performance Oscar-worthy since July. Too much of her performance seems edited together into wrought-with-emotion montage scenes. Also: Adrian Lyne is one of the best DVD commentary directors out there. A stylish director who pays attention to the little things, he’s very good at describing why he made certain directorial and editing decisions.

One more thing for theatre-lovers. I saw “Moon Over Broadway” last night on DVD and it is essential viewing for anyone who has spent time working in the theatre. It’s a documentary (by documentarian extraordinaire D.A. Pennebaker) about the Broadway mounting of “Moon Over Buffalo” starring Carol Burnette (who hadn’t been on Broadway in 30 years) and Philip Bosco. The expert editing of last minute script changes, the play’s prick of a director, and a neurotic playwright keep this thing interesting every single minute of the way. As a bonus, the DVD offers a commentary track which essentially acts as a sequel to the film as participants look back on the documentary five or six years later. Lots of entertainingly uncomfortable moments.

So. Two of the most entertaining movies I have seen recently? A foreign film and a documentary. Lesson learned.

Oh, and one more thing: I saw “Adaptation” for the second time last week, and I loved it. The ending made sense to me. I don’t have the time or the brains to explain it; I just think the film needs to be seen twice to be appreciated. Once you know the ending, especially if it’s fresh in your head from your first viewing, you can see the logic to it. I’d love to have this discussion with someone. Because all I’ve been doing is getting into fights with people who have only seen it once. I feel like I just found God and all my companions are non-believers, using the same non-believer language I used myself before seeing the film again. Or something like that. I’m just glad that my decision to put the film in my number 2 slot for best of the year is justified. Adam? Eric? Any chance you’ll see it again?

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

Wednesday, January 29, 2003

MOVIE CLUB - CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND (1)
From: Eric
To: Adam, Sam
Subject: I've been Clooneyed

Hey, gents. I don't think my contributions are the fix Nate and Island Girl were talking about in the Feedback Forum, but since I finally got around to seeing 'Confessions of a Dangerous Mind,' I thought I'd help a brother out in a bind. For those of you unfamiliar with the premise, the movie is based on Chuck Barris' 'unauthorized autobiography' in which he claims, in addition to being a successful TV producer ('The Dating Game,' 'The Newlywed Game,' and 'The Gong Show'), that he was a CIA hitman who killed 33 people. The film is, well, decent for a directorial debut. I have to give Clooney this: he may not be the best actor in the world, but he always chooses interesting subject matter. It's a stylish piece, more about look and feel and lounge music than substance, but that is fine for a spy movie. There is an inordinate amount of swearing in the film. I don't have a problem with swearing, I do it quite liberally in my daily life, but often times in movies I feel like an overuse of 'fuck' is just a crutch for bad writing. A lot of the buildup for the film is based on the notion that these events may have happened. This notion is patently ridiculous, and if that's the catch Clooney was shooting for (as he claims in his myriad talk show appearances), he could have done a better job setting it up. The film maintains a frothy tone throughout until we reach the coda, which is so poorly written I think Donald Kaufman helped out on it. Supposedly there is a mole in the CIA that his superiors want him to track down, and while I don't think Clooney is pretending the film is suspenseful, it's painfully obvious who it is halfway through the film. Sam Rockwell plays Barris and he's pretty good, though I think it is Drew Barrymore's finest screen performance to date (but I didn't see 'Home Fries' or 'Ever After,' so I'm probably not a fair judge). Clooney is as stiff as his first roles on the big screen, prompting thoughts of 'Batman & Robin' to skewer my sugar-plum fairies last night. Dear Julia Roberts, so eager to expand her range after always playing the 'movie star' for years, needs more to work with better material, or just take more offbeat roles. Lord knows there's enough scenery-chewing in this film (the FCC censor) to accomodate at least one more. The shot composition is actually pretty good, so it is a good film to look at (even if I have to see Rockwell's ass more times than I've seen my own in the past month). I'll give Clooney credit for this, mainly because I've heard him talk about favorite old films of his, including 'Citizen Kane,' whence he filched several flourishes, thought it just as easily could have been cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel ('The Usual Suspects' and 'Three Kings'). It's funny, it'll bring a smile to your face, but ultimately it's no more than a series of disjointed acting exercises. Fellas, tear into me.

P.S. I nearly crapped my pants when looking into Drew Barrymore's profile at IMDb.com and seeing that there is a movie version of 'A Confederacy of Dunces' slated for release in 2004. The few that know me on this site realize this is my favorite book of all-time, and I wouldn't wish the adaptation on anyone. A quick click provides that it is Soderbergh and one of his producer buddies, and I suppose I can't think of anyone better (though it would be interesting to see what the Farrelly Bros. would do with it). The only cast member listed is Barrymore, who is also producing, so I'll be surreptitiously following this for the next year.

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

Tuesday, January 28, 2003

WEEK FROM HELL - Only two days in and I need this week to be over. Is there anything more demoralizing than a fruitless 90 minute trip to the DMV? Posts Wednesday from somebody, sometime. I promise.

E-mail CinemaScoped@attbi.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum