Dazed and Confused

Have you ever left the cinema confused? Not sure what you’ve just paid money to see? This can sometimes mean the film is crap: confused plots (or lack thereof) and or performances. However, this can sometimes be a good sign: you’ve been challenged and now see the world in a new light. Today’s reviews fall somewhere in this grey zone of cinematic confusion. Let the ride begin.

Black Swan

In an interview with an Australian film magazine a comparison was made between Aronofsky’s last film The Wrestler and his latest offering Black Swan. For those of you who saw The Wrestler this may seem a bit like chalk and cheese: the story of a broken down, has-been professional athlete up against the grace, beauty and finesse of the ballet world. However, the comparison also invites favourable reminiscence about the guts and raw intensity of Mickey Rourke’s performance and the ability to make a largely ridiculed and derided form of entertainment heartbreaking and accessible to a mainstream audience. So is the comparison warranted?

Firstly, the intensity of the Black Swan has not been rivalled this year. Not since watching the last half hour of Inception have I been on the edge of my seat until the credits started rolling. The slick directing from Aronofsky ensures the dramatic suspense of the storyline does not fizzle out and as we are thrown into a world of fantasy, ballet and inner turmoil one feels as though you are living the experience of Natalie Portman’s Nina. The end is comparable to Mickey Rourke attempting one last “Ramjam” and no less thrilling.

Also, like The Wrestler, the performances are superb. Portman as Nina, the innocent new principal ballerina, gives a performance worthy of the Oscar buzz. Her struggle to embrace the darker side of her personality is engaging and painful as we see her battle, self-harm and the whims of a demanding artistic director in Vincent Cassel. One of the early scenes in which they embrace and she bites him demonstrates both the clever psychology of Cassel and the ability of Aronofsky to keep the audience on its toes.

Finally, the music does not disappoint. The score keeps pace with the action and almost negates the need for spoken interaction. The last half hour is only sparsely punctated by dialogue as the music heightens the dramatic tension. Like the soundtrack to The Wrestler, this will be in my rotation for sometime.

So was it a fair comparison? I hope not. Both films are intense and tell familiar stories in a unique and engaging light. Both have wonderful performances by lead actors and direction that crescendo into heartbreakingly beautiful cinematic finishes. However, Mickey Rourke did not win an Oscar for his performance and it would be a travesty if Natalie Portman is denied one here.

The Dilemma

I think the backers of this film had a dilemma: cast funny guy Vince Vaughn as your lead and get dependable director Ron Howard to control him. Unfortunately, one of Vaughn’s companies financed it and so what you get is confusion: Ron Howard drama trying to compete with Vince Vaughn humour.

This is not to say that the film isn’t funny. As I sat there watching I knew which parts were meant to be funny: cue Vince ranting while someone else played the straight guy. Unfortunately, when we got to those moments I didn’t feel like laughing all that much. Okay, I did giggle at the urinating joke in the beginning, but laughing at an intervention to stop problem gambling that turns into the very public break up of a marriage is not exactly a belly ache. Call me old fashioned but Vaughn threatening to burn off the face of a man whose house he just broke into or hijacking someone else’s wedding anniversary to rant about cheating doesn’t tickle my funny bone.

Moreover, Vaughn’s character must have been lobotomised somewhere in the back story because he lacks basic emotional awareness granted to functioning citizens. He’s shocked that his best friend is angry at him for telling him he slept with his wife before they were married? That’s a new one. Hang on, he doesn’t quite get why the cheating man wants to kill him when he breaks into his house and destroys his possessions? That’s just plain unreasonable. Most disturbingly, he wants to get married to his girlfriend (played by Jennifer Connelly*) yet fails to be honest with her about the situation or realise that his behaviour is somewhat suspicious for a recovering gambling addict.

Now at this point it seems just like a long rant and I probably didn’t appreciate the film for what it was: comedy =) Not true, I love comedy but laughing at gambling addiction, break and enter and infidelity aren’t exactly on my laugh radar. Nice concept, poor execution. Lesson to learn: never let Vince Vaughn tell Ron Howard how to direct a film.

Adult Humour?

Drinking problem? LOL! Lets do some weed too! ROFL!




Bored out of my mind on Sunday night, I ventured into the world of American sitcoms and far from being amused I was shocked: substance abuse is alive and well in the world of the “average” family!

The show I am referring to is Rules of Engagement, a show premised on the hilarity from observing a married couple, an engaged couple and a single man interacting. While the premise alone has potential for laughs, the performances are forgettable and even David Spade cannot rescue the comedy (*NB: I gathered it was a comedy from the presence of a laugh track NOT the dialogue or poor Godfather impersonations).

However, my concern was the blatant ignorance of alcoholism and the condoning of recreational drug taking. Both substance abuse issues revolved around the engaged woman who we first meet carrying a box of about a dozen empty wine bottles:

You guys must have had a party?
No.
So you guys like wine.
Yeah, we like wine.
Okay.
Actually, I just like wine.
Okay…
Do you want to have a wine?

So the responsible married woman notices that her neighbour and friend seem has a drinking problem and her only response is to shrug it off. This is further reinforced by the engaged woman choosing to smoke marijuana because there is no wine in the house!

Now, I may seem like a wowser and reading too much into a sitcom whose job is to purely entertain but I think not. Sitcoms reflect social attitudes and if this is the attitude towards substance abuse then we have a serious problem. Alcoholism impacts not only the abuser but family and friends as well as job prospects. For her friend to blatantly ignore this problem is to neglect her friend and as good as putting another bottle in her hand and saying “bottoms up!”

Furthermore, the portrayal of smoking marijuana was stupidly clichéd and condoned the practice. If the woman is suffering from alcoholism then smoking recreational drugs will further compound her problems and may lead to harder substance abuse problems.

Following your heart can be painful… but rewarding

The beginning of the year is my favourite movie time of year. With the Oscars just around the corner, the cream of the crop of films start to be released and I have an even more reason to buy the new DVD releases! That being said, Christmas also sees the release of the “holiday blockbuster”, usually a prequel/sequel or a film with multiple stars that just can’t be ignored, that can unfortunately be hit and miss. So let’s look at what the beginning of the year brought so far.

Somewhere
There was an intriguing, engaging and heartbreaking story of a man trying to reconnect with his child as he realises the futility of his materialistic, drug and sex driven existence. Unfortunately, Sofia Coppola’s latest cinematic release has all the beautiful trademarks of her early work but fails to pack a punch in the storyline. This sounds harsh but she did set herself a high benchmark following Lost in Translation and The Virgin Suicides and this was made higher by the tagging of the film with this former hit and thus I couldn’t help but leave the cinema disappointed.

On the positives, the film had all the hallmarks of Sophia Coppola’s film making genius and her ability to convey a sense of isolation amongst chaos. Her main actors hit the mark and much has been rightly made of Elle Fanning and Stephen Dorff as the father/daughter duo. Their on screen chemistry is perfect and Stephen Dorff brings a sense of humanity to an otherwise selfish character: his blank stare at the poll dancing duo is a poignant opening that quickly conveys the message of the film. Similarly, the soundtrack by Phoenix enhances the mood of the film and lulls the audience into Johnny Marco’s world of opulence, girls, booze, and film premiers. Finally, the cinematography is beautiful and brings back shades of Lost in Translation.

However, the thing that made Lost in Translation so beautiful as well as powerful was the relationship between Murray and Johansson that blossomed and ultimately died in front of our eyes. Their joint isolation and mutual relationship dissatisfaction made their union an engaging dance with that final whisper in her ear being a scene that will remain a part of cinematic history (along with that famous opening shot but that’s not really emotional is it?). All this is missing in the latest effort and shows up more so for all its other strengths. Granted, she couldn’t remake that story but a self-pitying Hollywood actor who decides to give it all away – yawn, I’ve seen it a hundred times and I’m still don’t feel any more sorry for them. Moreover, the final scene is so clichéd I only stayed around for the credits to find out who did the soundtrack.

The reason I think behind this is her critical failure in Marie Antoinette. Personally, this is one of my favourite films of all time, not just counting Sophia Coppola films, and was a raucous mix of history, fashion and social commentary. However, the general reaction to the film was criticism and as such it didn’t attain the commercial success of her previous outings. This saw a long wait for her next work and I feel that this has hampered her creative output this time around. I don’t blame her for wanting to ensure box office and critical success but in playing it safe with such a well worn storyline has its downfall.

The Tourist
Johnny Depp looks blank/stupid or heroic/earnest.

Angelina Jolie pouts her lips and acts annoyed at Depp.

Paul Bettany acts likes an infuriated British plodder.

Shock twist at the end of the film.

This may seem a harsh summary of an awful film so here it is in simple language: it was crap and everyone sleep walked their way through their roles. Scriptwriting 101 plus good actors does not a good movie make, as my wife said: “It seems they just did the film to get paid.” Enough said.

Blue Valentine
I was meant to see this film about a month ago with a complementary ticket to the Canberra film festival but it was sold out and I left feeling like I hadn’t really missed out on anything. How wrong could I be?

This is the best film I’ve seen since Inception and all the more impressive because it doesn’t tell a new or exciting story. It is a love story: boy meets girl, they fall in love, have a family and run into trouble. Whereas in Somewhere a well worn story fails to pack a punch, this film has emotional grit to spare and isn’t afraid to explore sensitive issues head-on (the paedophile joke on the bus in just one example).

Gosling and Williams make an excellent leading couple whose disintegrating marriage we follow, interceded by a series of flashbacks, to its painful conclusion. Gosling’s earnestness is matched with Williams’ vulnerability and together we see all the phases of love: the chase, initial lust, marriage and dissatisfaction. The most powerful thing about the film was its rawness and realness: I felt like I had lived and seen those scenes played out in my own life and felt their pain at going through them. The smile on Williams’ face when she meets an old flame and the ensuing argument with Gosling capture the reality of married life and the daily struggle of living with another person; a person with their own wants, desires and fantasies.

I couldn’t say too much more without giving away the important plot points but the build to the film’s final crisis is superbly timed and makes the journey feel complete. How does it end? I think the film leaves it open enough and I’m an optimist. See it. Cry during it. Love it.