Now it's time for the big guns.
From this point until late January, Hollywood and independent studios take this opportunity to release their most major releases of the cinematic calendar year. Mostly, this is solely to have their films qualify for awards season by being the freshest in viewer's minds.
While this tactic makes for a film going year that began as horrendously as this year, it is amazing to think that there will now be more than enough movies to choose from. So much so, that it will be difficult to keep up with the pace!
But, I do intend to try, especially with increased teaching duties and holiday responsibilities on the horizon. And here's what is in the pipeline...
1. I am currently composing my review for filmmaker Davis Guggenheim's documentary "Waiting For 'Superman'."
2. I hope to then screen Clint Eastwood's spiritual drama "Hereafter."
3. "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest," the final entry in Steig Larsson's "Millenium Trilogy," will hopefully make it's way into my schedule.
4. While not a fan of "The Hangover" at all, I have to say that Director Todd Phillips' "Due Date," starring Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis has indeed captured my curiosity.
5. And of course...the biggest of them all for the month...NOTHING will keep me away from Director David Yates' adaptation of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows-Part 1"!!!
That is certainly enough to keep my creative muscles flexed for the month and I hope to see you when the house lights go down...
Monday, November 1, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
THE GRASS ISN'T GREENER: a review of "You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger"
"YOU WILL MEET A TALL DARK STRANGER"
Written and Directed by Woody Allen
***1/2 (three and a half stars)
Five years ago, as I exited a movie theater after viewing a screening of Woody Allen’s superlative London set philosophical thriller, “Match Point,” I happened to briefly overhear a conversation snippet from an older couple behind me. “I guess I liked it,” offered the woman tentatively. “But, it just wasn’t funny.” The only reply from her male companion was a tired sounding sigh. I wanted to think that I understood that sigh because I uttered it to myself.
I don’t really know what it is that audiences want from Woody Allen, if anything at all. (No snarky remarks please as I realize I certainly left a door open widely.) He is extremely prolific as he releases a film every year or so. The level of his writing remains peerless. He has continued to elicit outstanding performances from his expertly selected casts. He has alternated between comedies and stark dramas and created hybrids of each for nearly 40 years running and for some reason, people still tend to leave his work befuddled, unimpressed, unenthusiastic and at worst, dismissive. The critical response that I have seen so far for his latest film, “You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger” has been lukewarm at best and surprisingly harsh at worst. While very little would keep me from seeing the latest Allen film, I could not help but to wonder if my reaction would possibly be more middling, especially with an artist so prolific, not every film can be a work of genius. Yet, as I watched, I became very involved and by the conclusion, I felt that Allen created yet another dark, nihilistic, yet fair-minded exploration of the human condition.
Again set in London, the film opens with the wry voice of an unseen narrator intoning Shakespeare’s wonderful quotation of life containing sound and fury but ultimately signifying nothing. Afterwards, we are immediately thrust into the jointly connected experiences of a collection of lives being played out in quiet desperation. We first meet the elderly Helena (Gemma Jones), shaken from her recent suicide attempt which was brought on by her divorce from Alfie (Anthony Hopkins), her husband of 40 years, as she is on her way to meet Cristal (Pauline Collins), a fraudulent fortune teller. Alfie, in a bout of an advanced age existential crisis, becomes obsessively involved with exercise, whitens his teeth, darkens his skin and takes up with the much younger Charmaine (Lucy Punch), a call girl who grows dangerously accustomed to Alfie’s wealth and lifestyle.
Alfie and Helena’s daughter Sally (Naomi Watts) is unhappily married to Roy (Josh Brolin), a despondent novelist, who despite having a modestly successful first book is now nowhere near completing his second. Roy quits his day job as a chauffeur to petulantly sit at home with his writer’s block and soon becomes transfixed at the sight of Dia (Freida Pinto from “Slumdog Millionaire”) through his window facing the adjoining flat. Meanwhile, Sally, a secretary and aspiring art dealer, is nursing a deep attraction to her boss, art gallery owner Greg Clemente (Antonio Banderas), a melancholy man who is also unhappily married. Throughout the course of the film, all of the characters’ deepest desires are tested, as they confront the crossroads of how the illusions they live by compare and contrast with the realities they obsessively run from.
Now, from the sound of all of these inter-related characters and their respective issues, it would not be surprising to think that people may not want to spend their hard earned money and even more precious time amongst a collective of people in various states of misery. And it’s not even presented as a slapstick comedy, the kind of film that some Allen fans are surprisingly still waiting for. “You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger” is a modest, sobering affair, a gloomy Sunday afternoon kind of movie that grows more profound over its running time especially as the fullness of the film’s title emerges. Once again, Allen is utilizing his gifts to explore the concepts of Fate Vs. Luck and questioning whether happiness is a right or a privilege alongside viewing the characters’ worst impulses play out in an understandable and non-judgmental fashion.
As with so many of his films, Woody Allen approaches the story with a matter-of-fact, almost documentary styled demeanor as he continues to contain a nearly endless fascination with how we all live our lives. In the case of this film’s characters, their problems contain a deeper urgency as they are all in the throes of early middle age to advanced age. They are all constantly questioning the trajectories of their lives and if they have ended up anywhere near where they may have envisioned so long ago.
For instance, when Sally first met Roy while rollerblading in a park, did she ever think that she would one day be childless, constantly fighting with her moody, unemployed husband and partially living off of Helena’s money? Did Alfie ever really feel that he could cheat the inevitability of his life with a much younger woman who turns out to be a gold digger? The film asks of its characters and the audience how deeply do we all delude ourselves throughout our daily lives and how far will we go to continue having those delusions. Once again, we have a film that forces its audience to think about the very things we certainly do not want to spend much time thinking about and Allen handles it all without the slightest edge of pretentiousness or self-important arrogance.
"You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger" is bathed in Allen’s trademark autumnal glow, the cinematography remains clean and uncluttered, the set and costume design is realistically appropriate to each character’s locale, income and lifestyle, Allen’s writing is predictably and brilliantly literate and his direction remains unfussy and without a hint of self-congratulatory flash. Yet, there are some sly touches on hand. Note the level of alcohol consumption by many of the characters, especially Roy who is rarely seen without a beer bottle in his hand or nearby. And then, throughout it all, there is the image of Roy gazing out of his window, a sight that grows more poetic, internally tragic and representative of all of the characters as the film continues.
All of the performances in “You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger” are uniformly excellent. Naomi Watts is an actress I have loved dearly since her incredible performance in David Lynch’s “Mulholland Drive” (2001) and she seems nearly incapable of striking a false note. Her ability to channel frustration, flirtatiousness, weakness, ferocious fury, incredulity, and crumbling heartbreak with an unrequited crush seems as effortless as walking and talking. She spins on a dime and it is a treasure to regard and behold her talent. I must make special mention of Roger Ashton-Griffiths who is quite endearing as Jonathan, a potential suitor for Helena who is also a recent widower who happens to own and operate an occult bookshop. But, for me, the film’s standout was the magnetic Josh Brolin who continues to impress me with role after role. The path of the character of Roy, with his fixation upon Dia as well as with his failing writing career, takes some surprisingly dark turns and he was so gripping that I could’ve easily taken an entire film based around him, thus making for an excellent companion piece to Allen’s “Crimes and Misdemeanors” (1989), “Match Point” and “Cassandra’s Dream” (2007). As it stands, the character of Roy and the performance of Brolin assist to make the film a fully resonant whole, one that would have easily faltered if this crucial element were not in place.
I would not be at all surprised that some may complain about the film’s lack of resolution or that it doesn’t really break any new ground for Allen. That these are the same issues and problems we have experienced in one Woody Allen film after another. All of those concerns may be very true, but, I think that is almost the point of "You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger" as it is the latest installment of what could be essentially one long film for Allen--especially when looking at the purposefully clichéd sounding title. The issues, situations, foibles, hopes and failings of these characters mirror the same experiences of past Allen characters as well as everyone who chooses to watch them. Philosophically speaking, Allen may be stating that this particular sound and fury is the same sound and fury that has been echoing through every single human being throughout all of time itself. And as these characters (as well as the audience) all march closer to meeting that silent, tall, dark stranger with the black cloak and scythe, that very pursuit of happiness grows bracingly crucial.
But does it all signify nothing? Are our ever present aching desires ultimately meaningless? And are the delusions we set in place for ourselves worthless? If a film is going to bother to pose these questions, and in such an intelligent and entertaining fashion, shouldn't we at least give it a try and potentially celebrate it?
I hope that you do as "You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger" sticks to the cinematic ribs and continues to percolate and haunt long afterwards.
Written and Directed by Woody Allen
***1/2 (three and a half stars)
Five years ago, as I exited a movie theater after viewing a screening of Woody Allen’s superlative London set philosophical thriller, “Match Point,” I happened to briefly overhear a conversation snippet from an older couple behind me. “I guess I liked it,” offered the woman tentatively. “But, it just wasn’t funny.” The only reply from her male companion was a tired sounding sigh. I wanted to think that I understood that sigh because I uttered it to myself.
I don’t really know what it is that audiences want from Woody Allen, if anything at all. (No snarky remarks please as I realize I certainly left a door open widely.) He is extremely prolific as he releases a film every year or so. The level of his writing remains peerless. He has continued to elicit outstanding performances from his expertly selected casts. He has alternated between comedies and stark dramas and created hybrids of each for nearly 40 years running and for some reason, people still tend to leave his work befuddled, unimpressed, unenthusiastic and at worst, dismissive. The critical response that I have seen so far for his latest film, “You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger” has been lukewarm at best and surprisingly harsh at worst. While very little would keep me from seeing the latest Allen film, I could not help but to wonder if my reaction would possibly be more middling, especially with an artist so prolific, not every film can be a work of genius. Yet, as I watched, I became very involved and by the conclusion, I felt that Allen created yet another dark, nihilistic, yet fair-minded exploration of the human condition.
Again set in London, the film opens with the wry voice of an unseen narrator intoning Shakespeare’s wonderful quotation of life containing sound and fury but ultimately signifying nothing. Afterwards, we are immediately thrust into the jointly connected experiences of a collection of lives being played out in quiet desperation. We first meet the elderly Helena (Gemma Jones), shaken from her recent suicide attempt which was brought on by her divorce from Alfie (Anthony Hopkins), her husband of 40 years, as she is on her way to meet Cristal (Pauline Collins), a fraudulent fortune teller. Alfie, in a bout of an advanced age existential crisis, becomes obsessively involved with exercise, whitens his teeth, darkens his skin and takes up with the much younger Charmaine (Lucy Punch), a call girl who grows dangerously accustomed to Alfie’s wealth and lifestyle.
Alfie and Helena’s daughter Sally (Naomi Watts) is unhappily married to Roy (Josh Brolin), a despondent novelist, who despite having a modestly successful first book is now nowhere near completing his second. Roy quits his day job as a chauffeur to petulantly sit at home with his writer’s block and soon becomes transfixed at the sight of Dia (Freida Pinto from “Slumdog Millionaire”) through his window facing the adjoining flat. Meanwhile, Sally, a secretary and aspiring art dealer, is nursing a deep attraction to her boss, art gallery owner Greg Clemente (Antonio Banderas), a melancholy man who is also unhappily married. Throughout the course of the film, all of the characters’ deepest desires are tested, as they confront the crossroads of how the illusions they live by compare and contrast with the realities they obsessively run from.
Now, from the sound of all of these inter-related characters and their respective issues, it would not be surprising to think that people may not want to spend their hard earned money and even more precious time amongst a collective of people in various states of misery. And it’s not even presented as a slapstick comedy, the kind of film that some Allen fans are surprisingly still waiting for. “You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger” is a modest, sobering affair, a gloomy Sunday afternoon kind of movie that grows more profound over its running time especially as the fullness of the film’s title emerges. Once again, Allen is utilizing his gifts to explore the concepts of Fate Vs. Luck and questioning whether happiness is a right or a privilege alongside viewing the characters’ worst impulses play out in an understandable and non-judgmental fashion.
As with so many of his films, Woody Allen approaches the story with a matter-of-fact, almost documentary styled demeanor as he continues to contain a nearly endless fascination with how we all live our lives. In the case of this film’s characters, their problems contain a deeper urgency as they are all in the throes of early middle age to advanced age. They are all constantly questioning the trajectories of their lives and if they have ended up anywhere near where they may have envisioned so long ago.
For instance, when Sally first met Roy while rollerblading in a park, did she ever think that she would one day be childless, constantly fighting with her moody, unemployed husband and partially living off of Helena’s money? Did Alfie ever really feel that he could cheat the inevitability of his life with a much younger woman who turns out to be a gold digger? The film asks of its characters and the audience how deeply do we all delude ourselves throughout our daily lives and how far will we go to continue having those delusions. Once again, we have a film that forces its audience to think about the very things we certainly do not want to spend much time thinking about and Allen handles it all without the slightest edge of pretentiousness or self-important arrogance.
"You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger" is bathed in Allen’s trademark autumnal glow, the cinematography remains clean and uncluttered, the set and costume design is realistically appropriate to each character’s locale, income and lifestyle, Allen’s writing is predictably and brilliantly literate and his direction remains unfussy and without a hint of self-congratulatory flash. Yet, there are some sly touches on hand. Note the level of alcohol consumption by many of the characters, especially Roy who is rarely seen without a beer bottle in his hand or nearby. And then, throughout it all, there is the image of Roy gazing out of his window, a sight that grows more poetic, internally tragic and representative of all of the characters as the film continues.
All of the performances in “You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger” are uniformly excellent. Naomi Watts is an actress I have loved dearly since her incredible performance in David Lynch’s “Mulholland Drive” (2001) and she seems nearly incapable of striking a false note. Her ability to channel frustration, flirtatiousness, weakness, ferocious fury, incredulity, and crumbling heartbreak with an unrequited crush seems as effortless as walking and talking. She spins on a dime and it is a treasure to regard and behold her talent. I must make special mention of Roger Ashton-Griffiths who is quite endearing as Jonathan, a potential suitor for Helena who is also a recent widower who happens to own and operate an occult bookshop. But, for me, the film’s standout was the magnetic Josh Brolin who continues to impress me with role after role. The path of the character of Roy, with his fixation upon Dia as well as with his failing writing career, takes some surprisingly dark turns and he was so gripping that I could’ve easily taken an entire film based around him, thus making for an excellent companion piece to Allen’s “Crimes and Misdemeanors” (1989), “Match Point” and “Cassandra’s Dream” (2007). As it stands, the character of Roy and the performance of Brolin assist to make the film a fully resonant whole, one that would have easily faltered if this crucial element were not in place.
I would not be at all surprised that some may complain about the film’s lack of resolution or that it doesn’t really break any new ground for Allen. That these are the same issues and problems we have experienced in one Woody Allen film after another. All of those concerns may be very true, but, I think that is almost the point of "You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger" as it is the latest installment of what could be essentially one long film for Allen--especially when looking at the purposefully clichéd sounding title. The issues, situations, foibles, hopes and failings of these characters mirror the same experiences of past Allen characters as well as everyone who chooses to watch them. Philosophically speaking, Allen may be stating that this particular sound and fury is the same sound and fury that has been echoing through every single human being throughout all of time itself. And as these characters (as well as the audience) all march closer to meeting that silent, tall, dark stranger with the black cloak and scythe, that very pursuit of happiness grows bracingly crucial.
But does it all signify nothing? Are our ever present aching desires ultimately meaningless? And are the delusions we set in place for ourselves worthless? If a film is going to bother to pose these questions, and in such an intelligent and entertaining fashion, shouldn't we at least give it a try and potentially celebrate it?
I hope that you do as "You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger" sticks to the cinematic ribs and continues to percolate and haunt long afterwards.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
FROM THE ARCHIVES 11: a review of "Whatever Works" (2009)
Originally written July 12, 2009
"WHATEVER WORKS" (2009)
Written and Directed by Woody Allen
*** (three stars)
The sublime pleasure I receive from hearing the unparalleled usage of language in a Woody Allen film is an unequivocal delight...even in one of his slighter efforts. After a four year European odyssey that produced at least two of of his finest films in many years (2005's "Match Point" and 2008's "Vicky Cristina Barcelona"), Allen returns to his beloved native New York for his latest comedic rumination on life and love, "Whatever Works." Starring the inimitable Larry David from HBO's masterful "Curb Your Enthusiasm," one may have expected (or have hoped) for a comic collaboration of seismic proportions. But, what is on display happens to be one of those aforementioned slighter efforts from Allen but perhaps that slightness is deceptive as the spell the film casts continues to linger after leaving the theater earlier this afternoon.
Davd stars as Boris Yellnikoff, a former Physics professor, String Theory expert, Nobel Prize hopeful and self-described "genius" who has emotionally spiralled into an endless black sea of misanthropic nihilism and quite cheerfully unleashes his rage against the world at any and every "inchworm" or "cretin" within earshot (that includes the audience whom he address by breaking the "fourth wall" early in the film). Yellnikoff is a morass of neuroses (would you expect anything else in an Allen film?) struck into this enraged state by the countless horrors of the world and more personal ones including a divorce and failed suicide attempt that has left him with a limp. At about the point where even his small circle of friends have had enough of his rants, who should drop into his life but Melody St. Ann Celestine (a joyful Evan Rachel Wood), a waifish Southern belle runaway who talks her way into Yellnikoff's apartment, promising to stay only for a few days. Melody's guilelessness and honest affection indeed begins to weaken Yellnikoff's resolve. A few days becomes nearly a year and before you know it, Melody professes her love for Yellnikoff and the two become married.
Now, before any of you begin to stone the screen feeling that this is another one of Allen's film romantic fantasies, the plot takes several twists and turns with the inclusion of more characters, most notably the separate arrivals of Melody's Southern, church going, NRA participant parents (endearingly portrayed by Patricia Clarkson and Ed Begley Jr.). What results is a film that explains simply enough that the heart wants what it wants and in a world where nothing is in our control, we must have the tolerance and acceptance of whatever gifts life may bestow at our feet--especially if it doesn't make sense initially. The relationship between Yellnikoff and Melody is a charming one but progresses in unexpected ways and the life paths of Clarkson and Begley Jr. flow into completely uncharted waters where both are surprised to realize that their lives are now happier ones.
In promotional interviews for the film, Allen explained that the screenplay for this film was originally written in the 1970's and to a degree, it shows (for the better upon further examination). Not through the humor, but through some of those character life changes. Topics of menage-a-trois and latent homosexuality are presented in a display of the almost innocent discovery that may have been a part of the 1970's journeys of self-analysis. There is no ironic distance or post-modern knowing to the proceedings and somehow, it is disarming through not being jaded and it greatly assists the film's primary theme of acceptance.
While Larry David certainly doesn't do much stretching from his HBO character (he's essentially a meaner version of his television role), he is a perfect conduit of Allen's material which could come off whiny and exhaustive from another actor's mouth. Somehow, you stick with David even at his most insufferable and perhaps our reaction gives us a window into Melody's innocent appreciation and love for this unashamedly grumpy old man. This also brings me to Evan Rachel Wood, an extremely talented young actress who I have enjoyed ever since her stint on the lovely series "Once and Again." After a collection of increasingly darker roles (which may have unintentionally made her a one-note actress), it was truly refreshing to see Wood travel to brighter pastures and show us a flirty, bouncy, light comedic style that will only work to her advantage as her career continues.
"This is NOT the feel-good movie of the year!!" bellows Yellnikoff at the start of "Whatever Works." But, somehow, through the affection for its characters, appreciation of their inner desires presented without judgement set to the marvelous tune of Allen's trademark dialogue, perhaps Allen did indeed make the feel-good movie of the year.
It didn't alter any perceptions or enthrall me like last year's "Vicky Cristina Barcelona," but I was happily entertained and for someone as skilled and prolific as Allen, a weaker effort is typically better than most other movies out there.
"WHATEVER WORKS" (2009)
Written and Directed by Woody Allen
*** (three stars)
The sublime pleasure I receive from hearing the unparalleled usage of language in a Woody Allen film is an unequivocal delight...even in one of his slighter efforts. After a four year European odyssey that produced at least two of of his finest films in many years (2005's "Match Point" and 2008's "Vicky Cristina Barcelona"), Allen returns to his beloved native New York for his latest comedic rumination on life and love, "Whatever Works." Starring the inimitable Larry David from HBO's masterful "Curb Your Enthusiasm," one may have expected (or have hoped) for a comic collaboration of seismic proportions. But, what is on display happens to be one of those aforementioned slighter efforts from Allen but perhaps that slightness is deceptive as the spell the film casts continues to linger after leaving the theater earlier this afternoon.
Davd stars as Boris Yellnikoff, a former Physics professor, String Theory expert, Nobel Prize hopeful and self-described "genius" who has emotionally spiralled into an endless black sea of misanthropic nihilism and quite cheerfully unleashes his rage against the world at any and every "inchworm" or "cretin" within earshot (that includes the audience whom he address by breaking the "fourth wall" early in the film). Yellnikoff is a morass of neuroses (would you expect anything else in an Allen film?) struck into this enraged state by the countless horrors of the world and more personal ones including a divorce and failed suicide attempt that has left him with a limp. At about the point where even his small circle of friends have had enough of his rants, who should drop into his life but Melody St. Ann Celestine (a joyful Evan Rachel Wood), a waifish Southern belle runaway who talks her way into Yellnikoff's apartment, promising to stay only for a few days. Melody's guilelessness and honest affection indeed begins to weaken Yellnikoff's resolve. A few days becomes nearly a year and before you know it, Melody professes her love for Yellnikoff and the two become married.
Now, before any of you begin to stone the screen feeling that this is another one of Allen's film romantic fantasies, the plot takes several twists and turns with the inclusion of more characters, most notably the separate arrivals of Melody's Southern, church going, NRA participant parents (endearingly portrayed by Patricia Clarkson and Ed Begley Jr.). What results is a film that explains simply enough that the heart wants what it wants and in a world where nothing is in our control, we must have the tolerance and acceptance of whatever gifts life may bestow at our feet--especially if it doesn't make sense initially. The relationship between Yellnikoff and Melody is a charming one but progresses in unexpected ways and the life paths of Clarkson and Begley Jr. flow into completely uncharted waters where both are surprised to realize that their lives are now happier ones.
In promotional interviews for the film, Allen explained that the screenplay for this film was originally written in the 1970's and to a degree, it shows (for the better upon further examination). Not through the humor, but through some of those character life changes. Topics of menage-a-trois and latent homosexuality are presented in a display of the almost innocent discovery that may have been a part of the 1970's journeys of self-analysis. There is no ironic distance or post-modern knowing to the proceedings and somehow, it is disarming through not being jaded and it greatly assists the film's primary theme of acceptance.
While Larry David certainly doesn't do much stretching from his HBO character (he's essentially a meaner version of his television role), he is a perfect conduit of Allen's material which could come off whiny and exhaustive from another actor's mouth. Somehow, you stick with David even at his most insufferable and perhaps our reaction gives us a window into Melody's innocent appreciation and love for this unashamedly grumpy old man. This also brings me to Evan Rachel Wood, an extremely talented young actress who I have enjoyed ever since her stint on the lovely series "Once and Again." After a collection of increasingly darker roles (which may have unintentionally made her a one-note actress), it was truly refreshing to see Wood travel to brighter pastures and show us a flirty, bouncy, light comedic style that will only work to her advantage as her career continues.
"This is NOT the feel-good movie of the year!!" bellows Yellnikoff at the start of "Whatever Works." But, somehow, through the affection for its characters, appreciation of their inner desires presented without judgement set to the marvelous tune of Allen's trademark dialogue, perhaps Allen did indeed make the feel-good movie of the year.
It didn't alter any perceptions or enthrall me like last year's "Vicky Cristina Barcelona," but I was happily entertained and for someone as skilled and prolific as Allen, a weaker effort is typically better than most other movies out there.
FROM THE ARCHIVES 10: a review of "VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA" (2008)
In anticipation of Writer/Director Woody Allen's latest feature, "You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger," I am now presenting the first of two older reviews of Allen's previous two features. Here is the first, which was originally written February 27, 2009.
"VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA" (2008)
Written and Directed by Woody Allen
**** (4 stars)
The modern day romantic comedy owes a tremendous debt to Woody Allen. While he certainly did not invent the genre, Allen's "Annie Hall" (1977) and "Manhattan" (1979) broke staggeringly new ground and we have been feeling the aftershocks ever since, most notably in Rob Reiner's 1989 classic "When Harry Met Sally..." Unfortunately, most romantic comedies that are released these days have not adhered to the intelligent, and deeply observed films of Allen's classics as they typically are trite confections of cinematic cotton candy filled with false emotions, completely contrived and predictable situations and shockingly, a huge lack of romance.
As for Allen himself, I treasure his talent and film legacy. Yet, there is the possibility that when someone is as prolific as he is, by making a film nearly every year, the quality may sometimes suffer and I have to say that I felt he had been treading water for a while. Then, he went to London and made three films there, including the masterful "Match Point" (2005) and the underrated "Cassandra's Dream" (2007). Now, he's moved on to Spain for his latest film and the change of scenery has been wonderfully rejuvenating and I think that he has produced a work that equals his high quality output of films during the late 1980's and throughout the 1990's: work that included "Crimes and Misdemeanors" (1989), "Alice" (1990), "Husbands and Wives" (1992), "Manhattan Murder Mystery" (1993) and "Bullets Over Broadway"(1994).
With Allen's' latest plot (two young American tourists--Rebecca Hall and Scarlett Johanssen-- find their differing notions of life and love challenged and tested during a summer in Spain) doesn't re-invent the "romantic comedy wheel" by any means, but relocating the action to Spain has added a new layer to the work, most notably, as a cultural critique of America's "quality of life" as compared to Spain's. The cinematography, music and locale are appropriately lush and filled with warm colors that effortlessly seduce the viewer's senses into the frisky mood of the setting, characters and their situations. It may even inspire a need to travel!
Allen's casting remains impeccable with Javier Bardem and fresh Oscar winner Penelope Cruz as standouts in their roles as formerly married artists still bound passionately to each other and the disastrous history of their romance. Their chemistry was so palpable that I am wishing Allen would consider making a "prequel" to show us how these two characters met, married and fell apart.
There has been some debate about Scarlett Johanssen's actual acting talent and the possibility that she was way out of her depth in this film. I felt that she hit all of the right notes with her performance as Cristina, a woman who feels that the validity and purity of love affairs all rest within some sort of tension and drama. Yet, when faced with the smoldering Bardem and the mentally ill and manically vibrant Cruz, her perceptions are confronted as she is now has true romantic turmoil staring her in the face. Cristina is romantically out of her depth and Johanssen played the role honestly.
As with any film from Woody Allen, there exists his brillant dialogue and with "Vicky Cristine Barcelona," the dialogue is a joy to listen to! Woody Allen is nearly peerless with his ear for intelligent, eloquent, literary dialogue that never for a moment feels false, talks down to its audience or betrays the motives, desires, thoughts, hopes and fears of his characters. It is simply a pleasure to have a filmmaker who treats his audience as smart people and his refusal to pander should be applauded more than it typically is.
For someone who has claimed to have a more nihilistic view of the world and life itself, it is amazing to me that Woody Allen, for over 40 years now, has continued to make film after film mining this subject matter (and the meaning of love in particular) in a humorous and often philosophical and open-hearted way.
"Vicky Cristina Barcelona" is one of his finest and the world of romantic comedies is graced to have its presence.
"VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA" (2008)
Written and Directed by Woody Allen
**** (4 stars)
The modern day romantic comedy owes a tremendous debt to Woody Allen. While he certainly did not invent the genre, Allen's "Annie Hall" (1977) and "Manhattan" (1979) broke staggeringly new ground and we have been feeling the aftershocks ever since, most notably in Rob Reiner's 1989 classic "When Harry Met Sally..." Unfortunately, most romantic comedies that are released these days have not adhered to the intelligent, and deeply observed films of Allen's classics as they typically are trite confections of cinematic cotton candy filled with false emotions, completely contrived and predictable situations and shockingly, a huge lack of romance.
As for Allen himself, I treasure his talent and film legacy. Yet, there is the possibility that when someone is as prolific as he is, by making a film nearly every year, the quality may sometimes suffer and I have to say that I felt he had been treading water for a while. Then, he went to London and made three films there, including the masterful "Match Point" (2005) and the underrated "Cassandra's Dream" (2007). Now, he's moved on to Spain for his latest film and the change of scenery has been wonderfully rejuvenating and I think that he has produced a work that equals his high quality output of films during the late 1980's and throughout the 1990's: work that included "Crimes and Misdemeanors" (1989), "Alice" (1990), "Husbands and Wives" (1992), "Manhattan Murder Mystery" (1993) and "Bullets Over Broadway"(1994).
With Allen's' latest plot (two young American tourists--Rebecca Hall and Scarlett Johanssen-- find their differing notions of life and love challenged and tested during a summer in Spain) doesn't re-invent the "romantic comedy wheel" by any means, but relocating the action to Spain has added a new layer to the work, most notably, as a cultural critique of America's "quality of life" as compared to Spain's. The cinematography, music and locale are appropriately lush and filled with warm colors that effortlessly seduce the viewer's senses into the frisky mood of the setting, characters and their situations. It may even inspire a need to travel!
Allen's casting remains impeccable with Javier Bardem and fresh Oscar winner Penelope Cruz as standouts in their roles as formerly married artists still bound passionately to each other and the disastrous history of their romance. Their chemistry was so palpable that I am wishing Allen would consider making a "prequel" to show us how these two characters met, married and fell apart.
There has been some debate about Scarlett Johanssen's actual acting talent and the possibility that she was way out of her depth in this film. I felt that she hit all of the right notes with her performance as Cristina, a woman who feels that the validity and purity of love affairs all rest within some sort of tension and drama. Yet, when faced with the smoldering Bardem and the mentally ill and manically vibrant Cruz, her perceptions are confronted as she is now has true romantic turmoil staring her in the face. Cristina is romantically out of her depth and Johanssen played the role honestly.
As with any film from Woody Allen, there exists his brillant dialogue and with "Vicky Cristine Barcelona," the dialogue is a joy to listen to! Woody Allen is nearly peerless with his ear for intelligent, eloquent, literary dialogue that never for a moment feels false, talks down to its audience or betrays the motives, desires, thoughts, hopes and fears of his characters. It is simply a pleasure to have a filmmaker who treats his audience as smart people and his refusal to pander should be applauded more than it typically is.
For someone who has claimed to have a more nihilistic view of the world and life itself, it is amazing to me that Woody Allen, for over 40 years now, has continued to make film after film mining this subject matter (and the meaning of love in particular) in a humorous and often philosophical and open-hearted way.
"Vicky Cristina Barcelona" is one of his finest and the world of romantic comedies is graced to have its presence.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
SAVAGE CINEMA'S BURIED TREASURE #7: "ONE HOUR PHOTO" (2002)
As a piggyback to the previous two installments, this latest Halloween edition of the Buried Treasure series spotlights the first feature from filmmaker Mark Romanek and starring the inimitable Robin Williams. Enjoy!
"ONE HOUR PHOTO" (2002)
Written and Directed by Mark Romanek
"Creativity comes from limits, not freedom."
-Jon Stewart, from a 2010 interview with Terry Gross
As I ruminate over the lengthy career of Robin Williams, I think the above statement could not be any more apt. Williams has proven himself endlessly to be one of the sharpest, funniest comedic minds on the planet and velocity of his quips could give viewers whiplash as we all attempt to stay aboard the speeding train of his creative energy. Yet, as an actor, I have long felt that he works to the finest of his enormous talents when he has parameters, boundaries and is placed under a certain level of control. The first time I found myself feeling this way was while watching Director George Roy Hill’s 1982 adaptation of Author John Irving’s The World According To Garp. Yes, I had loved him as a kid while watching “Mork and Mindy” on television and I was more than a bit bewildered throughout Director Robert Altman’s musical version of “Popeye” (1980) but this film was something different.
With his aforementioned roles as an alien and a cartoon character, Robin Williams, while hysterical, often felt otherworldly. In “The World According To Garp,” he strikingly became all too human with the same types of quirks, foibles, failings and ambitions we all hold for ourselves. And he was remarkable. He convinced me completely that he was this imaginative and sometimes temperamental novelist, househusband and devoted Father caught in an absurd, violent world not (entirely) of his making. To utilize a musical term, Williams hit all of the proper notes to express this peculiar view of humanity and when I finally and lovingly read the novel many years later, it seemed obvious to me that Robin Williams was the only choice to play this legendary fictional character. There seemed to be no filter between the words in the screenplay and his embodiment of those words. He breathed life and energy into every moment and after this beauty of a performance, I only wanted more of this depth from him.
But back to this issue of exerting parameters and boundaries upon such an excellent, unpredictable and at times, exhaustively unhinged talent. His comedy features have sadly and undeniably produced many, many terrible motion pictures where filmmakers obviously did not have the basics of a firm screenplay to keep him grounded and essentially waited for Williams to just appear on-set and “be funny.” His dramatic features (or features that straddle the fence between comedy and drama) have also fallen into the same traps. For every film like Paul Mazursky’s “Moscow On The Hudson” (1984), Fiedler Cook’s “Seize The Day” (1986), Barry Levinson’s “Good Morning Vietnam” (1987), Peter Weir’s “Dead Poet’s Society” (1989), Terry Gilliam’s “The Fisher King” (1991), Gus Van Sant’s “Good Will Hunting” (1997), Vincent Ward’s “What Dreams May Come” (1998), and Christopher Nolan’s “Insomnia” (2001), we have been blasted with cloying, over-emotive and self-congratulatory and falsely sentimental garbage like…Tom Shadyac’s ”Patch Adams” (1998).
While Robin Williams is more than able to reach certain emotional territories that, at times, can be nothing less than crippling, he desperately needs the proper limitations to guide him there. For this latest installment of Savage Cinema’s Buried Treasure, I turn to one of his very finest performances in Writer/Director Mark Romanek’s debut feature, the queasily disturbing thriller, “One Hour Photo.”
The simple plot of “One Hour Photo” could happily exist as a standard Lifetime movie network thriller and thankfully, Romanek brilliant transcends those trappings. Williams descends and dissolves into deep, and very dark waters as Seymour “Sy” Parrish, a solitary film developer in the WalMart styled department store named “SavMart.” Over the course of the film, Sy ingratiates himself and grows dangerously obsessed with the Yorkins, a suburban Los Angeles family (portrayed by Michael Vartan, Dylan Smith and the stunning Connie Nielsen) who have developed film at the store, under Sy’s meticulous care, for many years.
What Williams achieves, through the strong guidance of Romanek’s tight, perceptive screenplay and stylishly grim direction, makes the film even more chilling as we are often finding ourselves sympathizing with this character who could be unimaginatively and solely portrayed presented as a demonic being. A short sequence where he strolls through the Yorkin’s unoccupied house, taking in the life and family he does not have for himself, provides the perfect blend of empathy and creepiness, for instance, and it is through moments like this where the film shows us its higher ambitions.
In addition to delivering a film of unquestionable intensity that does provide a few shocks, “One Hour Photo” is a film whose reach extends beyond the thriller aspect towards a cultural observation. It is an exploration of loneliness and isolation and how those emotions play out against the idea of the “perfect family” whose cracks are unseen publicly. It is also a study of our collectively increased separation in a digital world that is ironically intended to bring people together. In many ways, the film may even be suggesting that even if our psyches are not as fragile as Sy’s, we are all becoming isolated from each other.
“One Hour Photo” also explores one man’s devotion to his work and how that devotion also defines a life. Yet, as that devotion is challenged and threatened, under the guise of technological progress, we see how that stress of becoming obsolete contributes to irrevocable psychological damage. The film is smartly places firmly in the age when traditional film made the cultural transition to the digital era, thus making a developer like Sy a relic. His fears of becoming irrelevant and even more insignificant than he already feels provides the story a level of pathos that Williams plays effortlessly. Thorough and painstaking in the detail of his work and craft as a developer combined with the pride in the energy and care he places in each person’s private photos collectively gives him the self-perception of being somewhat of an artist. The very type of artist that just does not exist in an accelerated, instant gratification world.
Sadly, the film he develops distributes unending sorrow for Sy as the worlds inside all of the photos are constant reminders of the richness of life he does have for himself. Sy Parrish is cut from the same cloth as other cinematic loners such as Travis Bickle from Martin Scorsese’s extraordinary “Taxi Driver” (1976). He is the classic misfit. A man who is constantly out of step with the times and his environment. He possesses weak social skills beyond basic customer service and photography serves as a lifeline. He is organized to the point of fastidiousness, wears the same beige colored clothing each day, returns to an empty home each night to a barren apartment, save for a television and a room containing an entire wall of years worth of developed photos depicting the Yorkin family. Once technological advances and the disintegration of his self-control intervene, he threatens to lose the ability to devote his life to his craft as well as losing his only connection to the world itself. Robin Williams brilliantly, subtly, empathetically and disturbingly conveys all of the emotions of this man’s splintering psyche alongside his wounded and all-too open heart, making for the type of thriller that is consistently unnerving and will definitely burrow under your skin with uneasiness and dread. Such is his mastery when given the proper control to how it is unleashed and it is a testament to the excellent collaboration between actor and filmmaker.
“One Hour Photo” was originally released to enthusiastic critical reviews and a modest box office and while it does show up on cable TV from time to time, it doesn’t appear to me to have taken on a larger pop cultural significance. A significance this film truly deserves. For this Halloween, along with Michael Mann’s “Manhunter” (1986) I am glad to offer you two high minded yet troubling and disquieting features that will definitely urge you to keep your house lights on long after you have completed watching.
"ONE HOUR PHOTO" (2002)
Written and Directed by Mark Romanek
"Creativity comes from limits, not freedom."
-Jon Stewart, from a 2010 interview with Terry Gross
As I ruminate over the lengthy career of Robin Williams, I think the above statement could not be any more apt. Williams has proven himself endlessly to be one of the sharpest, funniest comedic minds on the planet and velocity of his quips could give viewers whiplash as we all attempt to stay aboard the speeding train of his creative energy. Yet, as an actor, I have long felt that he works to the finest of his enormous talents when he has parameters, boundaries and is placed under a certain level of control. The first time I found myself feeling this way was while watching Director George Roy Hill’s 1982 adaptation of Author John Irving’s The World According To Garp. Yes, I had loved him as a kid while watching “Mork and Mindy” on television and I was more than a bit bewildered throughout Director Robert Altman’s musical version of “Popeye” (1980) but this film was something different.
With his aforementioned roles as an alien and a cartoon character, Robin Williams, while hysterical, often felt otherworldly. In “The World According To Garp,” he strikingly became all too human with the same types of quirks, foibles, failings and ambitions we all hold for ourselves. And he was remarkable. He convinced me completely that he was this imaginative and sometimes temperamental novelist, househusband and devoted Father caught in an absurd, violent world not (entirely) of his making. To utilize a musical term, Williams hit all of the proper notes to express this peculiar view of humanity and when I finally and lovingly read the novel many years later, it seemed obvious to me that Robin Williams was the only choice to play this legendary fictional character. There seemed to be no filter between the words in the screenplay and his embodiment of those words. He breathed life and energy into every moment and after this beauty of a performance, I only wanted more of this depth from him.
But back to this issue of exerting parameters and boundaries upon such an excellent, unpredictable and at times, exhaustively unhinged talent. His comedy features have sadly and undeniably produced many, many terrible motion pictures where filmmakers obviously did not have the basics of a firm screenplay to keep him grounded and essentially waited for Williams to just appear on-set and “be funny.” His dramatic features (or features that straddle the fence between comedy and drama) have also fallen into the same traps. For every film like Paul Mazursky’s “Moscow On The Hudson” (1984), Fiedler Cook’s “Seize The Day” (1986), Barry Levinson’s “Good Morning Vietnam” (1987), Peter Weir’s “Dead Poet’s Society” (1989), Terry Gilliam’s “The Fisher King” (1991), Gus Van Sant’s “Good Will Hunting” (1997), Vincent Ward’s “What Dreams May Come” (1998), and Christopher Nolan’s “Insomnia” (2001), we have been blasted with cloying, over-emotive and self-congratulatory and falsely sentimental garbage like…Tom Shadyac’s ”Patch Adams” (1998).
While Robin Williams is more than able to reach certain emotional territories that, at times, can be nothing less than crippling, he desperately needs the proper limitations to guide him there. For this latest installment of Savage Cinema’s Buried Treasure, I turn to one of his very finest performances in Writer/Director Mark Romanek’s debut feature, the queasily disturbing thriller, “One Hour Photo.”
The simple plot of “One Hour Photo” could happily exist as a standard Lifetime movie network thriller and thankfully, Romanek brilliant transcends those trappings. Williams descends and dissolves into deep, and very dark waters as Seymour “Sy” Parrish, a solitary film developer in the WalMart styled department store named “SavMart.” Over the course of the film, Sy ingratiates himself and grows dangerously obsessed with the Yorkins, a suburban Los Angeles family (portrayed by Michael Vartan, Dylan Smith and the stunning Connie Nielsen) who have developed film at the store, under Sy’s meticulous care, for many years.
What Williams achieves, through the strong guidance of Romanek’s tight, perceptive screenplay and stylishly grim direction, makes the film even more chilling as we are often finding ourselves sympathizing with this character who could be unimaginatively and solely portrayed presented as a demonic being. A short sequence where he strolls through the Yorkin’s unoccupied house, taking in the life and family he does not have for himself, provides the perfect blend of empathy and creepiness, for instance, and it is through moments like this where the film shows us its higher ambitions.
In addition to delivering a film of unquestionable intensity that does provide a few shocks, “One Hour Photo” is a film whose reach extends beyond the thriller aspect towards a cultural observation. It is an exploration of loneliness and isolation and how those emotions play out against the idea of the “perfect family” whose cracks are unseen publicly. It is also a study of our collectively increased separation in a digital world that is ironically intended to bring people together. In many ways, the film may even be suggesting that even if our psyches are not as fragile as Sy’s, we are all becoming isolated from each other.
“One Hour Photo” also explores one man’s devotion to his work and how that devotion also defines a life. Yet, as that devotion is challenged and threatened, under the guise of technological progress, we see how that stress of becoming obsolete contributes to irrevocable psychological damage. The film is smartly places firmly in the age when traditional film made the cultural transition to the digital era, thus making a developer like Sy a relic. His fears of becoming irrelevant and even more insignificant than he already feels provides the story a level of pathos that Williams plays effortlessly. Thorough and painstaking in the detail of his work and craft as a developer combined with the pride in the energy and care he places in each person’s private photos collectively gives him the self-perception of being somewhat of an artist. The very type of artist that just does not exist in an accelerated, instant gratification world.
Sadly, the film he develops distributes unending sorrow for Sy as the worlds inside all of the photos are constant reminders of the richness of life he does have for himself. Sy Parrish is cut from the same cloth as other cinematic loners such as Travis Bickle from Martin Scorsese’s extraordinary “Taxi Driver” (1976). He is the classic misfit. A man who is constantly out of step with the times and his environment. He possesses weak social skills beyond basic customer service and photography serves as a lifeline. He is organized to the point of fastidiousness, wears the same beige colored clothing each day, returns to an empty home each night to a barren apartment, save for a television and a room containing an entire wall of years worth of developed photos depicting the Yorkin family. Once technological advances and the disintegration of his self-control intervene, he threatens to lose the ability to devote his life to his craft as well as losing his only connection to the world itself. Robin Williams brilliantly, subtly, empathetically and disturbingly conveys all of the emotions of this man’s splintering psyche alongside his wounded and all-too open heart, making for the type of thriller that is consistently unnerving and will definitely burrow under your skin with uneasiness and dread. Such is his mastery when given the proper control to how it is unleashed and it is a testament to the excellent collaboration between actor and filmmaker.
“One Hour Photo” was originally released to enthusiastic critical reviews and a modest box office and while it does show up on cable TV from time to time, it doesn’t appear to me to have taken on a larger pop cultural significance. A significance this film truly deserves. For this Halloween, along with Michael Mann’s “Manhunter” (1986) I am glad to offer you two high minded yet troubling and disquieting features that will definitely urge you to keep your house lights on long after you have completed watching.
Monday, October 18, 2010
WE THREE: a review of "Never Let Me Go"
“NEVER LET ME GO”
Screenplay Written by Alex Garland
Based upon the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro
Directed by Mark Romanek
**** (four stars)
This one is going to be tricky.
I am going to attempt to compose an effective new review for you that does not, in any way, openly reveal the MAJOR PLOT TWIST that occurs nearly 25-30 into this film. Even moreso than this summer’s “Inception,” the pleasure behind watching the second film from Director Mark Romanek (the first being 2002's “One Hour Photo”—perhaps a future “Buried Treasure” installment), is through not exactly knowing how and what events will play out. I went into this film somewhat cold and I would hope that you will be able to do the same. I will be able to divulge to you that the tale harbors a simultaneously creepy and melancholic science fiction element merged with a truly aching love story. But mostly, what impressed me greatly and left me remaining seated for a few minutes after the end credit scroll, is that it is a film that is supremely humane.
I have written frequently about humanity here on Savage Cinema and I have to admit that I would find it difficult to discover a film released this year more in tune with the dynamics of the synchronicity of life and how symbiotic we all are to each other. It is a demanding work yet not pretentious. It never falls into easy sentiment or provides easy answers to the grand questions it poses. It has a hugely open heart while never succumbing to saccharine emotions. It is a quiet, philosophical chamber piece of a film that delivers a gut punch of tragedy. Mark Romanek’s “Never Let Me Go,” is a deliberately paced, crystalline film that encompasses an enormous fragility that forces anyone who watches to examine their own lives and how humanely or inhumanely we live them.
After a brief introduction where we learn a scientific breakthrough occurred during the early 1950’s that has allowed human lives to be extended well past the age of 100, the tale opens in 1978 at Hailsham, a seemingly idyllic English boarding school completely isolated from the outside world. We are quickly introduced to the outwardly confidant and attractive Ruth (Ella Purnell), the shy, sadly teased and troubled Tommy (Charlie Rowe) and quietly introverted, empathetic and intellectual Kathy H. (Isobel Meikle-Small), three Hailsham students and close friends. All three, plus the remainder of the student body attend a series of classes which are decidedly off of the beaten path from comparable educational facilities and to our eyes, seem a tad “off.” Odd classes exist where the instructors mysteriously force the students to produce works of art. Classes, that could be described as “Social Studies,” contains students who engage in role playing activities designed to mirror real world exchanges within locations such as restaurants. School sanctioned Bumper Crop sales of obviously discarded artifacts from the outside world like vintage dolls, ancient cassette tapes and all forms of bric-a-brac are causes for high excitement throughout the student body. And great attention is placed upon the maintaining of the children's excellent physical health.
But there is a darkness lingering around the school. Hailsham is surrounded by a fence which none of the students dare to cross as they have all heard and shared stories of strange, dire fates that have occurred to those who have previously made the attempt to leave. The 4th year students are presided over by a sympathetically curious “Guardian” named Miss Lucy (Sally Hawkins), with whom the students all find comfort, especially the perpetually ridiculed Tommy who is prone to emotional outbursts. Throughout their school days and nights, the trio of Ruth, Kathy and Tommy grow closer, eventually forming all three sides of a tenuous love triangle where Ruth and Tommy begin to date yet Kathy and Tommy are the obvious soul mates.
As their stern Headmistress Miss Emily (Charlotte Rampling) proclaims during a morning gathering, “Hailsham students are special.” Very special indeed as we, the audience and characters, discover right around 25-30 minutes into the film when a troubled Miss Lucy reveals to all of the students their complete purpose in life, i.e. the MAJOR PLOT TWIST which I will not spoil for you here. From that crucial moment, the film divides into two more sections set in 1985 and 1994, long after Kathy, Ruth and Tommy (now played beautifully by Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightly and Andrew Garfield, respectively) have graduated from Hailsham, spent a period at a location known only as “The Cottages,” grown apart and eventually reunite. All the while, the threesome give themselves over to the deepest musings concerning their collective fates, the validity of their feelings in regards to their lives’ purposes as well as each other and finally, their most existential desires and hopes and facing down the inevitable.
“Never Let Me Go” is a science-fiction film without special effects, inter-galactic battles or aliens ready to devour us all. There is no graphic violence of any kind of display during even one moment in the film. It is film that utilizes elements of science-fiction to become a film about ideas with hefty concepts to explore and engage the audience with. Historically, it reminded in bits and parts of films like Director Michael Anderson's “Logan’s Run” (1976) or even Director Ridley Scott’s enormously influential “Blade Runner” (1982). More recently, Director Steven Spielberg’s “A.I.: Artificial Intelligence” (2001) and even Director Duncan Jones’ “Moon” (2009) came to mind. For the astute, through my brief and hopefully vague plot description combined with the aforementioned film comparisons, you may have been able to guess what the MAJOR PLOT TWIST happens to be. If you have, please do not let that stop you from seeing this film as the knowledge of the reveal will not ruin the cumulative effect. In fact, it just may enhance the story’s inherent pain and ultimate tragedy.
Romanek paces his film very slowly, not to instill a certain inertia, but to house us within a time and place, fully taking in the moments just as Kathy H., Tommy and Ruth are ingesting them. It is an autumnal world, with the shroud of death lingering in the corners through the endless grey skies, the wind blowing through the bare trees and at times, the perpetually fading glow of a sunset. There are no primary colors to speak of within the framework of the film as well. Thematically, it also has much in common with Writer/Director Charlie Kaufman’s “Synecdoche, New York” (2008) or even David Fincher’s “The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button” (2008).
Both of those films, along with “Never Let Me Go” are meditations upon death, the act and art of dying and being conscious of the lives we lead, and the life around us during every moment we are allowed to breathe air, regard the clouds drifting through the sky or receiving a kiss from a treasured soul. And yet, there is also boiling anger underneath the surface as Romanek explores the inhumanity of society through its exploitation and rape of the young for the supposed betterment of humanity as a whole. It argues at what cost would we want to cure the world’s worst diseases once and for all. There has been some criticism that Romanek keeps a certain emotional distance from the material making for a film that is decidedly chilly. Maybe so. But for me, the lack of hyperbolic displays worked in favor of the story and film’s themes. And I have to say that when certain hyperbolic moments do finally arrive, they will crush you.
Keira Knightly is an actress I have never been too terribly fond of as I have not been a fan of the Director Gore Verbinski’s “Pirates Of The Caribbean” trilogy and Director Tony Scott’s “Domino” (2005) was a misfire of criminally bombastic proportions. Yet within “Never Let Me Go,” her piercing gaze and pitch black hair affords Knightly a tempestuous dark allure that makes her an excellent source of attraction for the awkward Tommy. In the film's later portions, her shockingly skeletal frame physically embodies the aforementioned fragility of the story and landscape as a whole, bringing the tale to its proper devastation.
Screenplay Written by Alex Garland
Based upon the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro
Directed by Mark Romanek
**** (four stars)
This one is going to be tricky.
I am going to attempt to compose an effective new review for you that does not, in any way, openly reveal the MAJOR PLOT TWIST that occurs nearly 25-30 into this film. Even moreso than this summer’s “Inception,” the pleasure behind watching the second film from Director Mark Romanek (the first being 2002's “One Hour Photo”—perhaps a future “Buried Treasure” installment), is through not exactly knowing how and what events will play out. I went into this film somewhat cold and I would hope that you will be able to do the same. I will be able to divulge to you that the tale harbors a simultaneously creepy and melancholic science fiction element merged with a truly aching love story. But mostly, what impressed me greatly and left me remaining seated for a few minutes after the end credit scroll, is that it is a film that is supremely humane.
I have written frequently about humanity here on Savage Cinema and I have to admit that I would find it difficult to discover a film released this year more in tune with the dynamics of the synchronicity of life and how symbiotic we all are to each other. It is a demanding work yet not pretentious. It never falls into easy sentiment or provides easy answers to the grand questions it poses. It has a hugely open heart while never succumbing to saccharine emotions. It is a quiet, philosophical chamber piece of a film that delivers a gut punch of tragedy. Mark Romanek’s “Never Let Me Go,” is a deliberately paced, crystalline film that encompasses an enormous fragility that forces anyone who watches to examine their own lives and how humanely or inhumanely we live them.
After a brief introduction where we learn a scientific breakthrough occurred during the early 1950’s that has allowed human lives to be extended well past the age of 100, the tale opens in 1978 at Hailsham, a seemingly idyllic English boarding school completely isolated from the outside world. We are quickly introduced to the outwardly confidant and attractive Ruth (Ella Purnell), the shy, sadly teased and troubled Tommy (Charlie Rowe) and quietly introverted, empathetic and intellectual Kathy H. (Isobel Meikle-Small), three Hailsham students and close friends. All three, plus the remainder of the student body attend a series of classes which are decidedly off of the beaten path from comparable educational facilities and to our eyes, seem a tad “off.” Odd classes exist where the instructors mysteriously force the students to produce works of art. Classes, that could be described as “Social Studies,” contains students who engage in role playing activities designed to mirror real world exchanges within locations such as restaurants. School sanctioned Bumper Crop sales of obviously discarded artifacts from the outside world like vintage dolls, ancient cassette tapes and all forms of bric-a-brac are causes for high excitement throughout the student body. And great attention is placed upon the maintaining of the children's excellent physical health.
But there is a darkness lingering around the school. Hailsham is surrounded by a fence which none of the students dare to cross as they have all heard and shared stories of strange, dire fates that have occurred to those who have previously made the attempt to leave. The 4th year students are presided over by a sympathetically curious “Guardian” named Miss Lucy (Sally Hawkins), with whom the students all find comfort, especially the perpetually ridiculed Tommy who is prone to emotional outbursts. Throughout their school days and nights, the trio of Ruth, Kathy and Tommy grow closer, eventually forming all three sides of a tenuous love triangle where Ruth and Tommy begin to date yet Kathy and Tommy are the obvious soul mates.
As their stern Headmistress Miss Emily (Charlotte Rampling) proclaims during a morning gathering, “Hailsham students are special.” Very special indeed as we, the audience and characters, discover right around 25-30 minutes into the film when a troubled Miss Lucy reveals to all of the students their complete purpose in life, i.e. the MAJOR PLOT TWIST which I will not spoil for you here. From that crucial moment, the film divides into two more sections set in 1985 and 1994, long after Kathy, Ruth and Tommy (now played beautifully by Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightly and Andrew Garfield, respectively) have graduated from Hailsham, spent a period at a location known only as “The Cottages,” grown apart and eventually reunite. All the while, the threesome give themselves over to the deepest musings concerning their collective fates, the validity of their feelings in regards to their lives’ purposes as well as each other and finally, their most existential desires and hopes and facing down the inevitable.
“Never Let Me Go” is a science-fiction film without special effects, inter-galactic battles or aliens ready to devour us all. There is no graphic violence of any kind of display during even one moment in the film. It is film that utilizes elements of science-fiction to become a film about ideas with hefty concepts to explore and engage the audience with. Historically, it reminded in bits and parts of films like Director Michael Anderson's “Logan’s Run” (1976) or even Director Ridley Scott’s enormously influential “Blade Runner” (1982). More recently, Director Steven Spielberg’s “A.I.: Artificial Intelligence” (2001) and even Director Duncan Jones’ “Moon” (2009) came to mind. For the astute, through my brief and hopefully vague plot description combined with the aforementioned film comparisons, you may have been able to guess what the MAJOR PLOT TWIST happens to be. If you have, please do not let that stop you from seeing this film as the knowledge of the reveal will not ruin the cumulative effect. In fact, it just may enhance the story’s inherent pain and ultimate tragedy.
Romanek paces his film very slowly, not to instill a certain inertia, but to house us within a time and place, fully taking in the moments just as Kathy H., Tommy and Ruth are ingesting them. It is an autumnal world, with the shroud of death lingering in the corners through the endless grey skies, the wind blowing through the bare trees and at times, the perpetually fading glow of a sunset. There are no primary colors to speak of within the framework of the film as well. Thematically, it also has much in common with Writer/Director Charlie Kaufman’s “Synecdoche, New York” (2008) or even David Fincher’s “The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button” (2008).
Both of those films, along with “Never Let Me Go” are meditations upon death, the act and art of dying and being conscious of the lives we lead, and the life around us during every moment we are allowed to breathe air, regard the clouds drifting through the sky or receiving a kiss from a treasured soul. And yet, there is also boiling anger underneath the surface as Romanek explores the inhumanity of society through its exploitation and rape of the young for the supposed betterment of humanity as a whole. It argues at what cost would we want to cure the world’s worst diseases once and for all. There has been some criticism that Romanek keeps a certain emotional distance from the material making for a film that is decidedly chilly. Maybe so. But for me, the lack of hyperbolic displays worked in favor of the story and film’s themes. And I have to say that when certain hyperbolic moments do finally arrive, they will crush you.
Keira Knightly is an actress I have never been too terribly fond of as I have not been a fan of the Director Gore Verbinski’s “Pirates Of The Caribbean” trilogy and Director Tony Scott’s “Domino” (2005) was a misfire of criminally bombastic proportions. Yet within “Never Let Me Go,” her piercing gaze and pitch black hair affords Knightly a tempestuous dark allure that makes her an excellent source of attraction for the awkward Tommy. In the film's later portions, her shockingly skeletal frame physically embodies the aforementioned fragility of the story and landscape as a whole, bringing the tale to its proper devastation.
Andrew Garfield is quickly becoming a young actor to keep intense eyes upon as he has appeared in Director Terry Gilliam’s “The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus” (2009) and can also be currently seen in David Fincher’s “The Social Network.” In “Never Let Me Go,” he is nearly unrecognizable in regards to those two previous roles and it was indeed very late in the film when I realized exactly who he was. With his performance as Tommy, he resembles a classic schoolyard misfit combined with a “little boy lost.” With his fractured phrasings, he sometimes seems to suggest a person whose mind is not fully plugged into his surroundings but perhaps he knows and understands more than he lets on or even realizes himself. His equally emaciated frame works as equally as Knightly’s in regards to the tenuous hold the three characters have over their world and situations. And by the film’s later passages, Garfield hits notes that cut to the bone.
Carey Mulligan fulfills the promise of her work in Director Lone Scherfig’s “An Education” (2009) by delivering a rich and heartbreaking piece of work as the story narrator, and ultimate chronicler of the human soul. She conveys utter intelligence, maturity and bottomless sensitivity through a sheer economy of words, mannerisms and emotions while entirely giving us the fullness of life within the character of Kathy H. Her transition into the adult character is absolutely seamless from the work presented by the brilliantly cast younger actress and Mulligan's skill in "Never Let Me Go" shows exactly what I was speaking of with her wasted opportunity of a role in Oliver Stone’s recent “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.” Romanek figured out exactly how to utilize an actress of this level of talent and it is a gift for us in the audience to watch and become a part of this world through her soulful eyes.
“Never Let Me Go” is not an instant gratification film. It is not a film guaranteed to gather noticeable press. It is not designed to make $200 million dollars within the first ten days of its theatrical release. You will not be bombarded with television advertisements promoting it every few minutes on channel after channel. There is nothing about it that can be defined as “in your face.” In fact, if I have even persuaded some of you to seek out this movie, you may find yourself wondering, for much of its running time, just what it was that I have been going on and on about. So many times, it is that very lack of forceful notice that simultaneously gives a story its power and also makes a film of this nature fall through the cracks. Dear readers, I am passionately recommending this film to you. I really believe that it is one of the best films I have seen so far this year. Because of that, I feel obligated to encourage you as best as I am able to see this seemingly unassuming film.
I know that so many of you just want to be entertained when you take your valuable time and hard earned money out to the movie theater and I do the very same thing as well. As I look upon my favorite films of the year so far, which include titles like “How To Train Your Dragon,” “Easy A,” “Scott Pilgrim VS. The World” and my favorite remaining the aforementioned “Inception,” I would think that goes to show just how much I do love being entertained. But, sometimes, I just think we owe it to ourselves and to the artists in front of the camera and behind the scenes to support what they do, especially when it is performed to the caliber presented in “Never Let Me Go.” Sometimes movies are about so much more than just being entertaining. Sometimes it’s great to seek out something we just may need instead of something we simply want. And who knows, perhaps that need is what we wanted all along in the first place.
Most of all, when we have the chance to see films as humane as "Never Let Me Go" in our increasingly cynical, post-ironic and emotionally detached world, I think we should take it.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
SAVAGE CINEMA'S BURIED TREASURE #6: "MANHUNTER" (1986)
"MANHUNTER" (1986)
Based upon the novel Red Dragon by Thomas Harris
Written for the Screen and Directed by Michael Mann
I think that Director Jonathan Demme’s iconic psychological serial killer epic “The Silence Of The Lambs” (1991) is extremely over-rated.
Yup, I said it. And as you can now see with utmost certainty, I even published this thought as well! Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I think it is a bad movie at all. I do think that it is indeed a good one…but, defiantly, boldly, I still say that it is not a great one. I just believe that the extreme acclaim that film has received, especially during its sweep of the Academy Awards where it won Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay, was staggeringly overdone. Its ensuing legacy is one that continues to confound me.
When “The Silence Of The Lambs” was released, I was in college. I ventured out to the classic Orpheum theater on State Street, along with seemingly all of the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s student population, to see what had already been receiving enormous critical acclaim. Upon exiting, seeing friends over that weekend and then, reuniting with class acquaintances the next week, the response to the film appeared to be unanimously rapturous. I even had one close friend at the time who saw the film nine times as it was an experience she could not get enough of. Yes, “The Silence Of The Lambs” did hit nearly all of the correct pressure points for me as it was undeniably an extremely disturbing film. But, something just kept me at arms length overall. It was not necessarily the graphic violence or the amount of sheer terror on display that made me resist this film—although an aspect of that did come into play. I think what bothered me most about the film was probably what may be largest “elephant in the room” and that particular elephant was Anthony Hopkins.
Now while I do not think that Hopkins delivered anything resembling a bad performance, it kept striking me as overdone and even worse, it felt to be an uninspired and completely derivative performance. For something that was being so universally praised and has endured as one of the greatest screen villains of all time, I kept crying false at what I was watching. I felt that I had seen it all before and performed much more effectively. I even felt a strange sense of empathetic jealousy as Hopkins was reaping the rewards that I felt another actor deserved. The actor in question is named Brian Cox and he was the very first actor to portray the diabolical Dr. Hannibal Lecktor (note the different spelling of the surname) in Writer/Director Michael Mann’s stylishly stunning thriller, “Manhunter.”
Released during the summer of 1986, “Manhunter” received its fair share of critical acclaim but was ultimately met with indifference at the box office and now rests in a certain level of obscurity, even for a director of Mann’s stature. However, I contend that “Manhunter,” which contains a riveting performance by Brian Cox (more on that later), is twice the film that “The Silence Of The Lambs” is considered to be and this Halloween, as you begin to seek out scary movies for home viewing, I am excited to point you in the direction of this supremely haunting film.
“Manhunter” stars William Petersen from television’s “C.S.I.” and Director William Friedkin’s savagely brutal cop thriller “To Live And Die In L.A.” (1985) as former FBI forensics detective Will Graham, who has retired from duty to carve out a new, quiet existence in Florida with his wife (Kim Griest) and young son. One day, Graham is visited by his former superior Jack Crawford (the great Mann regular, Dennis Farina) in regards to a recent string of vicious serial murders of entire families that occur during the lunar cycle and bite marks are left upon victims. The crimes are being committed by a suspect the press has named “The Tooth Fairy.” Crawford, aware of Graham’s unparalleled skill as a profiler requests that Graham return to duty for this one particular case. Graham initially refuses as his previous and final case nearly rendered him incapacitated: the hunting and capture of Dr. Hannibal Lecktor.
While Graham is trepidatious to return to the field, he eventually acquiesces and begins his search for “The Tooth Fairy” by facing down the imprisoned Dr. Lecktor for advice and counsel. Lecktor, seemingly unsurprised to receive this visit is only too willing to continue the horrific mind games that almost permanently disabled Graham during an intense reunion. “How did you catch me?” asks Lecktor slyly. Deftly attempting to maintain the upper hand, Graham remarks that the task was completed to due to Lecktor’s “disadvantages.” When asked exactly of which disadvantages to which Graham is referring, Graham tensely answers, “You’re insane.”
Meanwhile, the reticent and elusive Francis Dollarhyde (an almost unearthly Tom Noonan), the man behind the killings, is caught in a psychological and emotional quandary as he develops a crush upon blind co-worker Reba McLane (the elegant Joan Allen), who continuously shows him a level of kindness of which he is extremely unaccustomed. The remainder of “Manhunter” consists of the inevitable convergence of Graham and Dollarhyde, which builds force and urgency as the lunar cycle develops and tempts to unleash Dollarhyde’s demonic impulses once again.
“Manhunter” is an atmospheric masterpiece of creeping tension and near crippling internal crisis. The film contains all of Mann’s directorial trademarks from the sophisticated dark cinematography and set design, evocative rock and electronic music score, and a hypnotically deliberate pace, which are all filtered through Mann’s notoriously meticulous attention to detail. The film contains spellbinding imagery (Lecktor's cell, the image of a sleeping tiger, for starters) that has remained firm in my cinematic brain for almost 25 years. You will also find quietly intense performances from the entire cast, which also features Stephen Lang (currently seen as the jingoistic and bulked up military Colonel in “Avatar” as well as a smaller role in Mann’s “Public Enemies”) as a pesky journalist who turns up on the wrong end of Dollarhyde’s most horrific impulses in a sequence that is the definition of a nightmare. All of the simmering tension boils to an swiftly brutal and excellent climax set to Iron Butterfly’s hallucinogenic rock classic “In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida.“
With the grim subject matter and action sequences, another tactic I appreciated tremendously from Mann is his use of actual restraint as there is actually not much on screen violence in this film. In fact, “Manhunter” is a film about the physical and psychological aftermath of unspeakable and graphic violence and the characters’ relationship with that violence. One of the very best scenes in the film is a quiet discussion, held between Graham and his son in a grocery store, about Graham’s career, responsibility and the nature of good and evil. It is simple, direct, honest and refreshingly unsentimental.
Also, “Manhunter” is another of Mann’s explorations of troubled men and their obsessive relationships with their work, be it crime fighting or murder. In Mann’s oeuvre, every job has a lugubrious process and sequence that the characters seem to be fated. With “Manhunter” and the characters of Graham and Dollarhyde, these men are no exceptions as the film works effectively as a portrait of two tortured men who are both battling to not be consumed by their deepest fears and failings. Dollarhyde’s intense inner struggle with his impulses as he is building an attraction to Rose works brilliantly in conjunction with Graham who is desperately trying to hold onto his sanity in a precarious career that he cannot seem to walk away from. This dance makes for a great duet of a character study to which Mann’s focus is riveted and also does not allow the film to disintegrate into a tasteless goon show.
And now, I must return to the performance of Brian Cox. As so many film-goers over the years have attested to Sean Connery being the only James Bond, for me, I have to say that Cox is the only Dr. Hannibal Lecktor. In regards to Hopkins, I felt as if I was always seeing the acting, that he was obviously dressed in costume to playing a part. Hopkins is an actor I have long admired yet for this particular role, I thought that I was always aware of the wizard behind the curtain.
Cox, on the other hand, IS Dr. Hannibal Lecktor! His connection to the character and thus, his connection to the audience is instantaneous. As he sits, comfortably imprisoned in an endlessly white colored cell and dressed in equally white prison fatigues, he is a picture of formidable insidiousness. It is as if he is a giant spider patiently waiting for his prized fly-Will Graham-to return, knowing full well that one day they will meet again. He is charming, fastidious, somewhat effete and even jadedly distracted, completely deflecting the mounting danger of the killings Graham hopes to solve. His non-chalance is deeply and brilliantly unsettling. When he coldly taunts Graham with the seemingly simple question, “Dream much, Will?” it sent a chill through me that I still felt which watching “The Silence Of The Lambs” and even now, as I recall the sequence. And frankly, it was a chill Hopkins never ever reached for me.
Cox is extremely aided by Mann’s storytelling genius as he decides to NOT reveal key information behind Graham and Lecktor’s relationship. We never learn what exactly led to Lecktor’s capture or what brutal damage Lecktor inflicted upon Graham that led him to retire. “Manhunter” never even makes mention of Lecktor being a cannibal. Cox’s performance is nothing less than an embodiment of evil, (much like Javier Bardem's ruthless and mostly silent performance in the Coen brothers' "No Country For Old Men" from 2007) which is all the more impressive as Cox’s screen time must be less than 15 minutes of a two hour film. Yes, I do believe that Dr. Hannibal Lecktor is one of cinema’s greatest villains but not in the performance delivered by Anthony Hopkins. It is amazing how much was accomplished with so little and if you do take the plunge and seek out this film, I hope you will be able to fully appreciate the excellence and influence of Brian Cox’s masterful performance.
So, why was this film not a box office hit? No one will ever really know the reasons why some films strike box office gold over others but in this case, the studio behind “Manhunter” did nothing to assist its lucrative goals. While the film was released at the height of Michael Mann’s hit television series, “Miami Vice” and the noir-ish “Crime Story,” the film was given a non-descript and generic title that definitely made it sound as if it were nothing less than type of “B movie” that would nowadays be an unnoticed direct-to-DVD release. While Mann did shoot the film under the original title of “Red Dragon,” the studio forced him to change the title, fearing audiences would think it was a martial arts film or even more ridiculous, would confuse it with the then recent box office bomb, Director Michael Cimino’s crime thriller “Year Of The Dragon” (1985).
But what a difference a box office smash makes as film studios, eager for a piece of the “Hannibal Lector Pie,” made not one but two sequels starring Hopkins-Director Ridley Scott's 2001’s “Hannibal" and most criminally, Director Brett Ratner’s 2002 remake of “Manhunter” under the original title of “Red Dragon”-and one poorly received prequel film without Hopkins.
For now, I point you to the original and one of Michael Mann's finest films. “Manhunter” is an intoxicating bad dream of a movie at its most compelling and mesmerizing. I am thrilled to recommend a great film to you that will certainly burrow under your skin and refuse to let you go during this Halloween season.
Based upon the novel Red Dragon by Thomas Harris
Written for the Screen and Directed by Michael Mann
I think that Director Jonathan Demme’s iconic psychological serial killer epic “The Silence Of The Lambs” (1991) is extremely over-rated.
Yup, I said it. And as you can now see with utmost certainty, I even published this thought as well! Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I think it is a bad movie at all. I do think that it is indeed a good one…but, defiantly, boldly, I still say that it is not a great one. I just believe that the extreme acclaim that film has received, especially during its sweep of the Academy Awards where it won Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay, was staggeringly overdone. Its ensuing legacy is one that continues to confound me.
When “The Silence Of The Lambs” was released, I was in college. I ventured out to the classic Orpheum theater on State Street, along with seemingly all of the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s student population, to see what had already been receiving enormous critical acclaim. Upon exiting, seeing friends over that weekend and then, reuniting with class acquaintances the next week, the response to the film appeared to be unanimously rapturous. I even had one close friend at the time who saw the film nine times as it was an experience she could not get enough of. Yes, “The Silence Of The Lambs” did hit nearly all of the correct pressure points for me as it was undeniably an extremely disturbing film. But, something just kept me at arms length overall. It was not necessarily the graphic violence or the amount of sheer terror on display that made me resist this film—although an aspect of that did come into play. I think what bothered me most about the film was probably what may be largest “elephant in the room” and that particular elephant was Anthony Hopkins.
Now while I do not think that Hopkins delivered anything resembling a bad performance, it kept striking me as overdone and even worse, it felt to be an uninspired and completely derivative performance. For something that was being so universally praised and has endured as one of the greatest screen villains of all time, I kept crying false at what I was watching. I felt that I had seen it all before and performed much more effectively. I even felt a strange sense of empathetic jealousy as Hopkins was reaping the rewards that I felt another actor deserved. The actor in question is named Brian Cox and he was the very first actor to portray the diabolical Dr. Hannibal Lecktor (note the different spelling of the surname) in Writer/Director Michael Mann’s stylishly stunning thriller, “Manhunter.”
Released during the summer of 1986, “Manhunter” received its fair share of critical acclaim but was ultimately met with indifference at the box office and now rests in a certain level of obscurity, even for a director of Mann’s stature. However, I contend that “Manhunter,” which contains a riveting performance by Brian Cox (more on that later), is twice the film that “The Silence Of The Lambs” is considered to be and this Halloween, as you begin to seek out scary movies for home viewing, I am excited to point you in the direction of this supremely haunting film.
“Manhunter” stars William Petersen from television’s “C.S.I.” and Director William Friedkin’s savagely brutal cop thriller “To Live And Die In L.A.” (1985) as former FBI forensics detective Will Graham, who has retired from duty to carve out a new, quiet existence in Florida with his wife (Kim Griest) and young son. One day, Graham is visited by his former superior Jack Crawford (the great Mann regular, Dennis Farina) in regards to a recent string of vicious serial murders of entire families that occur during the lunar cycle and bite marks are left upon victims. The crimes are being committed by a suspect the press has named “The Tooth Fairy.” Crawford, aware of Graham’s unparalleled skill as a profiler requests that Graham return to duty for this one particular case. Graham initially refuses as his previous and final case nearly rendered him incapacitated: the hunting and capture of Dr. Hannibal Lecktor.
While Graham is trepidatious to return to the field, he eventually acquiesces and begins his search for “The Tooth Fairy” by facing down the imprisoned Dr. Lecktor for advice and counsel. Lecktor, seemingly unsurprised to receive this visit is only too willing to continue the horrific mind games that almost permanently disabled Graham during an intense reunion. “How did you catch me?” asks Lecktor slyly. Deftly attempting to maintain the upper hand, Graham remarks that the task was completed to due to Lecktor’s “disadvantages.” When asked exactly of which disadvantages to which Graham is referring, Graham tensely answers, “You’re insane.”
Meanwhile, the reticent and elusive Francis Dollarhyde (an almost unearthly Tom Noonan), the man behind the killings, is caught in a psychological and emotional quandary as he develops a crush upon blind co-worker Reba McLane (the elegant Joan Allen), who continuously shows him a level of kindness of which he is extremely unaccustomed. The remainder of “Manhunter” consists of the inevitable convergence of Graham and Dollarhyde, which builds force and urgency as the lunar cycle develops and tempts to unleash Dollarhyde’s demonic impulses once again.
“Manhunter” is an atmospheric masterpiece of creeping tension and near crippling internal crisis. The film contains all of Mann’s directorial trademarks from the sophisticated dark cinematography and set design, evocative rock and electronic music score, and a hypnotically deliberate pace, which are all filtered through Mann’s notoriously meticulous attention to detail. The film contains spellbinding imagery (Lecktor's cell, the image of a sleeping tiger, for starters) that has remained firm in my cinematic brain for almost 25 years. You will also find quietly intense performances from the entire cast, which also features Stephen Lang (currently seen as the jingoistic and bulked up military Colonel in “Avatar” as well as a smaller role in Mann’s “Public Enemies”) as a pesky journalist who turns up on the wrong end of Dollarhyde’s most horrific impulses in a sequence that is the definition of a nightmare. All of the simmering tension boils to an swiftly brutal and excellent climax set to Iron Butterfly’s hallucinogenic rock classic “In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida.“
With the grim subject matter and action sequences, another tactic I appreciated tremendously from Mann is his use of actual restraint as there is actually not much on screen violence in this film. In fact, “Manhunter” is a film about the physical and psychological aftermath of unspeakable and graphic violence and the characters’ relationship with that violence. One of the very best scenes in the film is a quiet discussion, held between Graham and his son in a grocery store, about Graham’s career, responsibility and the nature of good and evil. It is simple, direct, honest and refreshingly unsentimental.
Also, “Manhunter” is another of Mann’s explorations of troubled men and their obsessive relationships with their work, be it crime fighting or murder. In Mann’s oeuvre, every job has a lugubrious process and sequence that the characters seem to be fated. With “Manhunter” and the characters of Graham and Dollarhyde, these men are no exceptions as the film works effectively as a portrait of two tortured men who are both battling to not be consumed by their deepest fears and failings. Dollarhyde’s intense inner struggle with his impulses as he is building an attraction to Rose works brilliantly in conjunction with Graham who is desperately trying to hold onto his sanity in a precarious career that he cannot seem to walk away from. This dance makes for a great duet of a character study to which Mann’s focus is riveted and also does not allow the film to disintegrate into a tasteless goon show.
And now, I must return to the performance of Brian Cox. As so many film-goers over the years have attested to Sean Connery being the only James Bond, for me, I have to say that Cox is the only Dr. Hannibal Lecktor. In regards to Hopkins, I felt as if I was always seeing the acting, that he was obviously dressed in costume to playing a part. Hopkins is an actor I have long admired yet for this particular role, I thought that I was always aware of the wizard behind the curtain.
Cox, on the other hand, IS Dr. Hannibal Lecktor! His connection to the character and thus, his connection to the audience is instantaneous. As he sits, comfortably imprisoned in an endlessly white colored cell and dressed in equally white prison fatigues, he is a picture of formidable insidiousness. It is as if he is a giant spider patiently waiting for his prized fly-Will Graham-to return, knowing full well that one day they will meet again. He is charming, fastidious, somewhat effete and even jadedly distracted, completely deflecting the mounting danger of the killings Graham hopes to solve. His non-chalance is deeply and brilliantly unsettling. When he coldly taunts Graham with the seemingly simple question, “Dream much, Will?” it sent a chill through me that I still felt which watching “The Silence Of The Lambs” and even now, as I recall the sequence. And frankly, it was a chill Hopkins never ever reached for me.
Cox is extremely aided by Mann’s storytelling genius as he decides to NOT reveal key information behind Graham and Lecktor’s relationship. We never learn what exactly led to Lecktor’s capture or what brutal damage Lecktor inflicted upon Graham that led him to retire. “Manhunter” never even makes mention of Lecktor being a cannibal. Cox’s performance is nothing less than an embodiment of evil, (much like Javier Bardem's ruthless and mostly silent performance in the Coen brothers' "No Country For Old Men" from 2007) which is all the more impressive as Cox’s screen time must be less than 15 minutes of a two hour film. Yes, I do believe that Dr. Hannibal Lecktor is one of cinema’s greatest villains but not in the performance delivered by Anthony Hopkins. It is amazing how much was accomplished with so little and if you do take the plunge and seek out this film, I hope you will be able to fully appreciate the excellence and influence of Brian Cox’s masterful performance.
So, why was this film not a box office hit? No one will ever really know the reasons why some films strike box office gold over others but in this case, the studio behind “Manhunter” did nothing to assist its lucrative goals. While the film was released at the height of Michael Mann’s hit television series, “Miami Vice” and the noir-ish “Crime Story,” the film was given a non-descript and generic title that definitely made it sound as if it were nothing less than type of “B movie” that would nowadays be an unnoticed direct-to-DVD release. While Mann did shoot the film under the original title of “Red Dragon,” the studio forced him to change the title, fearing audiences would think it was a martial arts film or even more ridiculous, would confuse it with the then recent box office bomb, Director Michael Cimino’s crime thriller “Year Of The Dragon” (1985).
But what a difference a box office smash makes as film studios, eager for a piece of the “Hannibal Lector Pie,” made not one but two sequels starring Hopkins-Director Ridley Scott's 2001’s “Hannibal" and most criminally, Director Brett Ratner’s 2002 remake of “Manhunter” under the original title of “Red Dragon”-and one poorly received prequel film without Hopkins.
For now, I point you to the original and one of Michael Mann's finest films. “Manhunter” is an intoxicating bad dream of a movie at its most compelling and mesmerizing. I am thrilled to recommend a great film to you that will certainly burrow under your skin and refuse to let you go during this Halloween season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)