Category: Winners – 2010s

1917 – 2019

I was utterly and completely surprised by this film in the best way.  I had no expectations going into it, and was on the edge of my seat almost the entire film.  It was incredibly well-crafted, perfectly cast, had a lot of first-rate acting, a lush, gorgeous score, a quick and engaging pace, plenty of fantastic drama, and a good amount of action.  I couldn’t think of a single thing they could have done to make this movie any better… until I did my research.  But I’ll get to that that in a bit.

Set in World War I, the film follows two British infantry men who are sent into enemy territory to deliver a message to a British Captain, telling him to call off an attack that would lead 1,600 men into a German trap where they would all be slaughtered. They were Dean Charles Chapman, playing Lance Corporal Tom Blake, and his friend, Lance Corporal Will Schofield, played by George MacKay.  They both did an amazing job, but though MacKay seemed to get most of the award recognition, I was just a little more captivated by Chapman’s intimate performance. And there were a few recognizable faces in the supporting cast like Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Richard Madden, all of whom had fairly small but important parts.  They all did a fine job.

The movie’s score was one of the best I have heard in a long time.  Composer Thomas Newman wrote a soundtrack that went a long way to lending the movie an almost surrealistic quality.  It was beautiful and haunting at times, and tense and exciting at others.  When the two men are creeping through German held territory, not able to see what was around the next bend, over the next hill, the music built a tension that kept me on the edge of my seat!

The film’s directing, cinematography, and editing were beyond amazing.  The entire film was put together in such a way as to make it look like two massively long continuous shots, the first lasting an hour and six minutes, and the second lasting till the end of the almost two hour movie.  The long and complex takes were amazing to watch.  The camera was constantly moving in elaborately choreographed ways to make it appear as if there were never any cuts, besides the one.  It was amazing how it captured every piece of the action, every visual detail of the story.  The final result was actually beautiful and artistic in its construction. 

As with most movies based on real events, I did a little reading about the historical accuracy of the movie.  Now, understand that what I learned didn’t change my enjoyment of the movie, however, the film’s lack of historical accuracy was a mark against it.  It was a movie about World War I, and while there were many things about the movie, like the sets and costumes, that were spot-on, apparently, the actions and motivations of some of the supporting characters did not reflect the attitudes of the men who actually fought in the great war.  According to Wikipedia, Cathy Tempelsman of the New York Times wrote, “the storyline offers a ‘dangerously misleading’ picture of the War, suggesting ‘a concern for the sanctity of human life from the top down’, whereas the reality was ‘an appalling indifference as the British high command sent hundreds of thousands of their young men to die’. She adds that the ‘false heroics and filmmaking feats of wonder’ serve to provide an ‘escape from the true carnage of the Great War’, and that in reality the scale of the casualties was such that the potential loss of 1,600 men would not have excited the response portrayed in the film.”

In the movie, the message to call off the attack is delivered and heeded.  The lives of the soldiers are saved, and Blake, though posthumously, and Schofield, are portrayed as heroes.  But can you imagine how much more powerful the end of the movie could have been if the message gotten delivered, and Captain Mackenzie, played by Cumberbatch, ignored it and sent the 1,600 men to die anyway?  It would have emphasized the pointless waste and disregard for human lives that is an unfortunate and yet inevitable aspect of war.

The whole movie was so well done, but I have to mention one scene in particular that really threw my emotions for a loop.  It was the scene where Tom Blake is killed.  The two men see a German airplane get shot down.  It nearly crashes into them, and rather than allow the pilot to burn alive in his cockpit, they take pity on him and rescue him, and decide not to shoot him.  Unfortunately, without warning, the German stabs Tom in the gut.  Will shoots the pilot, but it is too late.  The damage is done, and Tome bleeds to death in in his friend’s arms.  It was a powerful moment, one that I really didn’t see coming.

There were so many things that this movie got right, and though I am usually not a huge fan of war films, this was a good one that I would watch again.  Director Sam Mendez really put together, not just a film, but a work of art.  I have to admit that the year’s Best Picture winner, Parasite, was a really good film that deserved its win, but I would have been just as happy if this one had taken home the big prize.  It was that good.  And I’m going to have to keep my eyes open for whatever Sam Mendez comes up with next.  Very well done, everyone!

Parasite – 2019

What a historic Best Picture winner!  This was a movie that came out of South Korea, a foreign language film that had English subtitles. Many people felt chagrinned that this movie took home the top prize and I’ll have to admit, that I was similarly prejudiced against a film that I had to read as I watched.  That is, until I finally watched it.  Then my opinion completely changed, and I understood why it won the coveted award.  It was just a really good movie, no matter what language the dialogue was in.

You see, I had always been of the opinion that the Academy Awards was basically an American institution, but one that didn’t ignore foreign films.  After all, they had their own category and received their own awards.  I never gave non-English-speaking films much consideration.  This closed-minded outlook was only reinforced last year when the movie Roma got so much attention.  I watched that film, and honestly, was completely unimpressed.  I found it to be a well-crafted movie that was ultimately boring to watch. 

But Parasite was such a good movie.  It was an original story with characters that were well-written, a relevant social message, gripping drama, and excellent acting.  The director, Bong Joon-ho, was also the man who penned the script.  The plot was engaging, easily keeping my interest for the entire duration.  The ending was surprising and thought provoking, and perfectly plausible.  It was a smart movie that wisely took the time to develop characters that were real and easy to identify with, despite being foreign to me, an unknowledgeable American.

I’ll start off with a quick plot synopsis and character descriptions before moving on to the deeper meanings and metaphorical aspects of the movie.  The film starts out following the poor Kim family living in a slum.  They live in a filthy basement that is infested with cockroaches.  But the family has three things going for it.  The children are smart, the parents are skilled laborers, and none of them have any scruples.  They are all con artists.  To be fair, they would work, except that there are no jobs available.

The son, Ki-woo, played by Choi Woo-shik, takes advantage of an opportunity to tutor Da-Hye, played by Jung Heyon-jun, the teenage daughter of a very wealthy family living in the fantastic house belonging to the Park family.  Mrs. Park, played by Cho Yeo-jeong is not terribly smart, and is easily taken in when Ki-woo suggests an art teacher for her young son, Da-song, played by Jung Hyon-jun, who has emotional problems after believing he has seen a ghost.  In comes Ki-jung, Ki-woo’s sister, to be the art tutor.  After that, they cleverly, yet viciously, manipulate the two members of the Park household staff to be fired so that Mr. Kim, played by Song Kang-ho, can become the driver for Mr. Park, played by Lee Sun-kyun, and Mrs. Kim, played by Jang Hye-jin, can become the housekeeper.  Thus, the entire Kim family becomes employed by the Park family, and live their days in luxury. 

When the Parks leave on a camping trip, the Kims have the run of the house, eating the food, drinking the liquor, and making a great mess of the place.  But then things go horribly awry when the displaced housekeeper, Moon-guang, played by Lee Jung-eun, shows up at the door. She asks to come in so that she can reveal a hidden passageway in the cellar.  The secret passage leads to a dark and run-down bunker where her husband, Geun-sae, played by Park Myung-hoon has been living for years, hiding from loan-sharks.  A fight breaks out for control of the house, a fight which is broken up by the arrival of the Park family, whose camping trip has been ruined by a massive monsoon downpour.

But then the movie switched gears from being about a family of con artists, to something akin to a suspense thriller.  Some people are injured, others are killed, and everyone’s lives are pretty much destroyed.  There are several “Oh my God!” moments that had me on the edge of my seat.  Bong Joon-ho really knew what he was doing to keep the action and the drama going at a good pace, not too fast and not too slow.

The only real problem I had with this whole scene is that when they thought they had the house for the weekend, the Kim family made a huge mess.  Food crumbs, broken dishes, trash, and spilled alcohol littered the living room that was usually kept in a pristine state.  When the Parks phone to tell Mrs. Kim, who is now the housekeeper, that they would be home in minutes, they somehow are able to clean everything by sweeping it all under the giant coffee table, then hiding under the table themselves.  Apparently, Mr. and Mrs. Parks could not smell the spilled alcohol or see a single crumb on the floor.  There were no scuff marks on the hardwood floor after the violent scuffle that had taken place on it only a short time before.  It was a great scene, but not entirely believable.  But if that’s my biggest complaint, then the movie is doing just fine.

I thought that the standout members of the cast were Song Kang-ho playing the father of the Kim family.  There was a great scene in which he revealed the character’s philosophy of life, that the only plan that never fails is to never have a plan, and Kang-ho really sold the idea.  Also, I liked Lee Sun-kyun, playing Mr. Park.  I’m not exactly sure why he stood out to me, but something about him seemed to be a small cut above his fellow actors.

Interesting note: Parasite was nominated for six Academy Awards, winning four of them.  I am not surprised that the director, Bong Joon-ho, took home the Oscars for Best Director and Best Original Screenplay, along with Han Jin-won.  I would have liked to see a Best Actor nomination for Song Kang-ho, but I suppose it would have been difficult to single out a lead actor from the ensemble cast.

But the movie was more than a simple drama/con job/suspense film.  It was also a social commentary about the different classes in the Korean society.  The Kims lived in poverty in a basement while the Park family lived in luxury on top of a hill. But the point was made that even when the poor people usurped the possessions of the wealthy family, the still behaved like poor slobs and crude, low-class con artists.  On the surface, the film’s title is an obvious one, where the Kim family is a parasite to the Park family, dishonestly living off of their good fortune.  But Bong Joon-ho has said that the Parks were parasites as well, feeding off the poor people that served them.  The point was made that the Parks were unable to take care of themselves, that without their hired help, their household would fall into chaos and ruin.  They didn’t even know how to wash their dishes.

I liked the setting of the Park’s house because it was beautiful and spacious, but it was only made that impressive because we saw the other side.  The filthy squalor of the Kim family’s residence was absolutely pathetic, a fact that was emphasized by the flood that destroyed all their scant possessions.  The Kims were wading through raw sewage that came up to their waists while the Parks were remaining clean, dry, and comfortable on the top of a hill.  So the film was really pointing out the extreme differences between those who had, and those who had not.

The shocking ending of the movie was also a very thought provoking one.  The Kim family accidentally murders Moon-guang and traps her husband in the tiny bunker with her body. But at Da-song’s birthday party, he escapes, critically wounds Ki-woo, and murders Ki-jung with a kitchen knife in front of the party guests, after which Mrs. Kim kills him.  Da-song goes into a trauma-induced seizure.  Mr. Kim, incensed that Mr. Park is more concerned about his son’s seizure, and the bad smell of the murderer, than Ki-jung’s death, takes the knife and stabs Mr. Park in the heart.  He runs as police sirens begin to sound.

The film ends with Mr. Kim hiding in the bunker with no hope of escape, sneaking out at night to steal food from the refrigerator of the next owners of the house.  Ki-woo, recovered from his injuries, learns of his father’s whereabouts and has dreams of making enough money to purchase the house, himself in order to rescue his father, even though he would still have to remain in the house to avoid punishment for his crime. But it is a moot point.  Ki-woo will never have that kind of money, and he will never be able to rescue his father.

After watching the film, I found myself wondering if the ending was plausible, and I think it is.  And I also found myself wanting to know what happened to the Kim family next.  Would Ki-woo ever be able to get into the house to get his father out?  But I’m glad they never answered that question.  Leaving it a mystery was a smart choice.

Interesting note:  In doing my research, I have learned that the film made $257 million worldwide on a budget of $11 million.  According to Wikipedia, “A South Korean local government plans to restore the Goyang Aqua Special Shooting Studio set, where the film Parasite was produced, and use it as a Parasite movie experience tourism facility.  In addition, Goyang City has announced that it will invest $150 million in the development of the Goyang Film Culture Complex by 2026 to accommodate film experience tourism facilities, additional indoor studios, outdoor set production facilities, inter-Korean video content centers, and image research and development companies.  However, criticisms have been raised about the commercialization of areas known for poverty in South Korea and tourist destinations without concrete steps being taken to address the issues at hand.”  I couldn’t agree more on that point.

I know that a lot of people were not happy that a non-English speaking foreign film took home the Oscar for Best Picture.  Before watching the movie, I was one of them.  But this was just a really good movie.  It was well-crafted, excellently directed, clever, topical, and just an incredibly engaging movie to watch.  It was a film that I believe deserved its win.  From now on I’ll have to keep a more open mind about foreign films.

Green Book – 2018

This was a pretty good movie, but like many critics, I am divided on how good I think it was.  On the one hand, it was a wonderful and pleasant story about a brilliant and educated black pianist who hires an uneducated and crass white guy to be his driver in the deep south for a concert tour.  It dealt with the touchy issue of racism in a respectful and positive way.  But on the other hand, it seemed to be another version of the 1989 Best Picture winner, Driving Miss Daisy.  Though the plots are clearly different, there are a lot of undeniable similarities, and because of them, the film had a certain amount of predictability.

It is important to understand that the movie is based on a true story, and my research didn’t turn up any serious historical inaccuracies.  The script was written by three men, Brian Hayes Currie, Peter Farrelly, and the son of the main character, Nick Vallelonga.  That being said, the main supporting character was that of the famous musician, Don Shirley, who died in 2013.  Apparently the Shirley family was not consulted concerning the concert pianist until after development, and they feel that the movie misrepresented him and his relationship with his family.

Interesting note: When Mahershala Ali, the actor playing Don Shirley, heard that the Shirley family was displeased with the film portrayal, he was quoted as saying, “I did the best I could with the material I had” and that he was not aware that there were “close relatives with whom I could have consulted to add some nuance to the character.”

Another interesting note: Per Wikipedia, “Nick Vallelonga acknowledged that members of the Shirley family were hurt that he did not speak to them, and that he was sorry that they were offended. He told Variety that ‘Don Shirley himself told me not to speak to anyone’ and that Shirley ‘approved what I put in and didn’t put in.’”

The film’s lead was Tony Vallelonga, wonderfully played by Viggo Mortensen.  But after seeing the movie, I think you could almost say that the film had two leads, because Don Shirley, beautifully played by Ali, had nearly as prominent a role, and certainly just as important a character arch.  In fact, that pretty well illustrates a criticism of the film that is easy to fall into, that of the idea that the movie used the “white savior” trope that is unfortunately seen so often in film.

What that means is that in films that have interracial casts, they often have the black person in trouble, to the point where that person needs to be saved, in one way or another, by a white person.  It is just another subtle way of way of saying that white people are inherently better than black people, something which we know to be a falsehood.

But I disagree with the criticism.  Green book was a movie in which nobody really needed saving.  It was a road trip film in which two men on opposite ends of the social spectrum learned to respect each other and become friends.  The racial angle was inherent in the plot as a black man travels through the deep south in the early sixties.  And like it or not, the south was a dangerous place for a free, educated black man to be during those times.  In fact, it was why, according to the film, Shirley hired a white tough guy who normally worked as a bouncer.  He anticipated trouble and knew he would need protection.

So there were the two character arches that we got to follow.  Tony starts out as a good natured and honest man who is a racist, so much so that he consciously throws away glasses in his own kitchen because they have been used by black men.  But then, for some reason, the very next day, he hasn’t the slightest problem accepting a job from Shirley.  He is crass and irreverent, but of course, the two men spend so much time together on the road, going from one concert engagement, one hotel to another, that they develop a friendship.

Don’s character starts the narrative as an educated elitist who has to put up with Tony’s lack of education, manners, and morals.  At one point he tries to give Tony diction lessons.  He also helps him write better love letters to his wife, played by Linda Cardellini, during their two month separation.  His life has been so high-brow that he knows little of the real world, so much so that he cannot take any pride in the accomplishments of such prominent black artists like Little Richard or Aretha Franklin.  He has never ever tasted fried chicken.  By the end of the film, he is able to come down off his high horse and join Tony and his family for their Christmas celebration.

And that’s about it.  There really isn’t very much more to the movie’s plot or its drama than that.  Now, the title of the movie came from a book published between 1936 and 1968, called The Negro Motorist Green Book.  A copy of this book was given to Tony at the start of the road trip, and it detailed in which hotels Shirley would be allowed to stay during his concert tour in the south.  And here is where I think some movie critics misunderstand the true nature of the film.

While the two men are able to stay at the same hotels, there are no problems.  But when Shirley is left alone at a “black” hotel, recommended by the Green Book, his complete inability to connect with other black people, because of his intellectual superiority, his educated history, his homosexuality, and his complete naivete… Wait!  His homosexuality?  Yes, it was just one more thing that separated him from the rest of common society… that got him into trouble.  Now, because he was in the south, the trouble was generally racial in nature, but not always.  One of his little excursions found him caught having sex with another man at a YMCA.

So yes, Tony had to save him when the police tried to arrest him for that.  And Tony had to save him when he was lynched by white men in a random bar.  But we can’t forget that it was Shirley and his powerful connections who saved Tony from serious jail time for assaulting a police officer.  So it really worked both ways.  And it was also clear that as their friendship strengthened, Shirley sought to help Tony in the only way he knew how, by attempting to educate him.

And then there was the climax of the film in which Shirley finally stands up for himself and refuses to play a concert at a venue that, while wanting him to entertain their guests, would not allow him to eat in the same restaurant with them.  I thought it was an important distinction that Tony actually advised him to eat somewhere else, and it was Shirley who made the decision to refuse to be treated so terribly.

Now, aside from the moral merits of the plot, the film was quite competent on other levels, The acting was good, the directing and cinematography were  just fine, the costumes were appropriate for the sixties, and the film score was pretty incredible.  Mahershala Ali took home his Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, and I suppose he turned in a good enough performance, but personally, I saw nothing better or more profound there than Viggo Mortensen’s performance, though he did have to take some basic piano lessons.

Interesting note: Whenever the movie showed close-ups of Ali’s hands on the keys, they actually belonged to the actor’s piano instructor, Kris Bowers, who also composed the film’s score.

I also like the peripheral characters of Shirley’s trio of musicians.  The Russian cellist, played by Dimiter D. Marinov, and the bassist, played by Mike Hatton, helped Tony to understand some of the complexities of Shirley’s personality and motives.  One was rarely on the screen without the other, and they each had their little moments of mild drama.  And Tony’s wife Dolores was always a pleasure to watch on the screen.  She has a very memorable moment in which she is reading one of Tony’s letters, clearly written with Shirley’s help, to her friends.  Her reaction to the unexpected articulate romance in the letter was nicely portrayed.

But I guess where I have a little problem with the movie, and yes, its Best Picture win, is that it just wasn’t terribly deep or profound.  The drama wasn’t very gripping.  Apart from one quick scene, the characters never seemed to be in much danger, and even then, I feel the scene could have somehow been more intense, more engaging.  In general, the plot just felt a little too contrived, too manufactured, too predictable.  I wasn’t really moved emotionally.  Even the feel-good ending could be seen coming form a mile away.  To put it plainly, there was nothing new being shown.

This doesn’t mean it was a bad movie.  It was, in more than one way, culturally relevant to our modern times, and I enjoyed watching it well enough.  But I don’t feel like I was the film’s target audience.  I don’t feel like I got much out of it.  It was up against Spike Lee’s BlacKkKlansman, which I thought was a better film.  Lee’s film dealt with the subject of racism in a much more direct, and yet more interesting way.  But as I said before, I don’t really think that racism was Green Book’s primary focus.  It was a road trip movie in which characters with opposite personalities learned to become friends.  The fact that their skins were different colors was almost incidental.

So there, I said it.  I don’t think this movie should have won the Best Picture award.  So why did it?  I’m not exactly sure.  But I suspect that it was the safe choice.  Everyone liked it, though not many people loved it.  It wasn’t polarizing, it wasn’t controversial, it wasn’t challenging.  It was just a nice movie that seemed to go out of its way to not offend anyone.  And in that, I  think it succeeded.  Just keep in mind that the film only has a 7.2/10 rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and 69 out of 100 on Metacritic, and based on my own experience with the movie, those numbers sound pretty appropriate.  The film is definitely worth seeing at least once.  Just don’t expect to be blown away.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Shape of Water 2018

I applaud the Academy for recognizing a fantasy film.  It did so for its artfulness, its drama, its acting, its musical score, and most importantly, its directing.  To be sure, I believe this movie could easily be called a work of art.  It was part fairy tale, part monster movie, part romance, and part 1960s period drama dealing with the Cold War.  It had a wonderful cast and a beautifully told and engaging story.

And all this, allegedly, came from the mind of the acclaimed director, Guillermo Del Toro, who has directed only twelve films over his career.  Perhaps he is most famous for the dark horror fantasy, Pan’s Labyrinth, though he is no stranger to directing more main-stream Hollywood blockbusters like Blade II, Hellboy I and II, and Pacific Rim.  Here, in The Shape of Water, Del Toro steps away from his normal horror and action genres and gives us a romance.  But I think that because of his roots in dark fantasy, it was a romance in the theatre of the bizarre.  But it worked, and it worked beautifully.  Del Toro has a knack for making the strange and almost grotesque look magical and alluring.

The main story is about Elisa Esposito, played by Sally Hawkins, a mute cleaning lady working at a secret government laboratory.  When a mysterious creature, referred to as “the asset”, is brought in, Elisa is intensely curious about it.  She sees that the creature is kept in a dark dungeon-like place that looked like it was designed by H. R. Giger, shackled in chains.  It is shaped like a man, but has all the qualities of a sea monster.  Its face is just human enough to display recognizable emotion.  Elisa is attracted to its other-worldly beauty.

Interesting Note:  When Del Toro was in talks with Universal Studios about doing a remake of the classic monster movie, 1954’s The Creature From the Black Lagoon, he pitched a story in which the monster gets the girl.  His idea was rejected, but Del Toro had the last laugh.  The Shape of Water ended up making over $172 million at the box office.

Elisa goes out of her way to find out what the creature is, and learns that it is a humanoid amphibian, played by Doug Jones.  It is never given a name.  She feels immediate sympathy for the creature, seeing it as a poor tortured animal.  But when she learns that it is intelligent, her feelings deepen to those of one who sees a fellow being suffering.  She shows it kindness and develops an emotional bond with it.  Eventually, that bond grows and grows until it manifests as romantic love.

I thought Sally Hawkins did a fantastic job.  She had a strong meekness to make me feel sympathy for her, something I believe was essential for the character.  But she also had enough maturity and fire to make me believe she would fight to have love and passion in her life.  As I watched the interviews included on the DVD, the actress’s voice and speech patterns reflected a similar personality.  She almost had what I sometimes call a “please don’t hit me” voice.  You know, the kind of voice that makes a person sound inherently apologetic or afraid.  And yet there was also a confidence that was undeniable.  In other words, she was perfect for the part, and she did a great job.  And yes, I think she really deserved her Best Actress nomination.

The government agent in charge of the creature is Colonel Richard Strickland, played by Michael Shannon.  His commanding officer, General Frank Hoyt, played by Nick Searcy, is just as mean-spirited and domineering.   Strickland already hates the creature because it is not human, but when it severs two of his fingers, his hate escalates into outright torture in which he uses a cattle prod.  Here is where a strong theme in the movie was really given a lot of weight.  The American government is evil and is run by evil men.

You see, the movie, according to Del Toro, is supposed to reflect the issues we are dealing with today without being blatant.  Apparently, as he sees it, we live in a world in which governments are not to be trusted, and it is the freaks and the outcasts of society who turn out to be the most humane people of all.  I’m not going to say whether this is true or not, but this isn’t the first movie to spout those sentiments.

When Strickland announces his plans to vivisect the creature, Elisa comes up with a plan to free him.  At the same time, a Soviet spy posing as a lab scientist who cares for the creature as a rare and precious biological life-form, catches Elisa in her scheme.  He decides to help her rather than let the creature be destroyed.  Together, along with Elisa’s kindly neighbor and her sympathetic coworker, the creature is smuggled out of the lab and a plan is made to release it into the ocean.

The latter half of the film was all about Elisa’s love affair with the creature, and Strickland’s hunt for the escaped “asset.”  The ending really cemented the plot as a real fairy tale, reversing the normal movie tropes and film stereotypes.  The monster was the hero, the military man was the monster, and the damsel was transformed into a water breathing princess, allowing the two lovers to live happily ever after.  It was sweet and a little unexpected.

But I have to mention one little scene that had me rolling my eyes just a little bit.  At one point, as Elisa is hiding the creature in her bathroom, she goes in to make love to it.  She stuffs towels under the door, turns on the bathtub and sink faucets, and fills the room with water.  I’m just not sure about the logistics of that.  I mean, the bathroom became filled almost to the ceiling with water.  Yes, it was shown that water was spilling out all around the door and leaking through the floor, but really?  The faucets would have to be pumping in more water than could escape from the room.  I’m just not convinced that scene would have been realistically physically possible.  But Ok, I get it.  The movie is a fantasy.  I’ll cut it a little slack.

Part of what propelled the movie from good to great is the well-written supporting characters.  Each was given a distinct and realistic personality, making them all believable.  They all seemed to be somehow damaged, each in their own ways.  There was Elisa’s kindly neighbor, Giles, played by Richard Jenkins.  He was a closeted homosexual, which was a dangerous thing in the 60s, causing him to have almost no self-confidence.  There was Zelda Delilah Fuller, played by Octavia Spencer, Elisa’s fellow cleaning lady, and her interpreter at work.  She was stuck in a marriage with a man who took lazy to a new level.  And then there was Dimitri Mosenkov, played by Michael Stuhlbarg,  the Russian spy working at the lab who wants to protect the unique creature from both the evil American military and his own Soviet superiors, though he is easily cowed in the face of authority.

I especially liked Octavia Spencer in her role as Elisa’s friend.  Spencer is a very good actress and I always love watching her on the screen.  She is always so real in her performances.  I also liked Stuhlbarg.  Ever since I noticed him in 2009’s Best Picture nominee, A Serious Man, I have been seeing him show up in unexpected places like 2011’s Hugo and 2012’s Lincoln, both of which were also nominated for the Best Picture.  And Jenkins is a character actor who has been in a ton of films for over thirty years.  He knows what he is doing.

Interesting note:  Both Spencer and Jenkins were nominated for Oscars for their roles in this movie, and they were only two of its thirteen nominations.  However, the four it won were Best Picture, Best Director for Del Toro, Best Original Score, and Best Production Design.

And it is that production design that stands out to me as the most memorable aspect of the film.  The aesthetics, the visuals, the look of the movie.  First lets talk about the obvious one: the creature.  You might think that in a modern film, a movie monster who was so clearly not human would get a full CGI treatment.  But to Del Toro’s credit, there was very little computer generated work done on him.  It was a man in a rubber suit with small digital elements added for a greater sense of realism.  I believe that the eyes and sometimes the spiny fin on its back were the most prominent added CGI effects.  But it worked wonderfully!  I thought the creature looked incredibly real and believable.  In an age where CGI effects are so common, and are not always done well, I appreciate movies that try to keep them to a minimum.  Of course, that being said, I don’t mind all the CGI in the world, as long as I don’t notice that it is being used.

Interesting note:  Apparently, people thought the creature’s bioluminescent spots were added with lights inside the costume, but the interviews with Del Toro and the creature’s designers, Shane Mahan and Mike Hill,  included on the DVD, said that it was simply black-light paint, which gave them the exact look they wanted.

Another trick used in the production design and the cinematography was the fact that most of the movie had a green tint to it, making me feel like it was all under water.  And it wasn’t subtle.  I immediately recognized the effect at the beginning of the film.  But again, it was effective.  It made certain colors like red and yellow stand out when they were used.  And those colors were used in very specific ways.  For example, when Elisa’s relationship with the creature became romantic, she started wearing red, indicating passion.

Now, I have to mention the little controversy surrounding the movie.  You see, Del Toro claims that he thought of the concept for the film in 2011.  However, in 2018, the estate of Paul Zindel initiated a lawsuit, in which he claims that Del Toro plagiarized from his 1969 play, Let Me Hear You Whisper.  In this play, a cleaning woman bonds with a talking dolphin being abused in a secret research laboratory, and attempts to rescue it.  Del Toro denies ever having any knowledge of the play before writing The Shape of Water.  You have to admit that the similarities in the stories are remarkable, but I have no reason to call Del Toro a liar.  He says that he thought of the concept during a conversation with the author Daniel Kraus, though Kraus never mentioned the play.  You’ll all have to form your own opinions about that.

All in all, I thought The Shape of Water was a very good movie.  Its romance and drama were smart and engaging, and yet passionate at the same time.  The acting was excellent and the directing was incredible.  The visuals were exciting and fanciful, inspiring my imagination.  I love movies that are able to take me away from reality and show me things I can’t see in the real world.  Sure, the concept was a little strange, but I applaud the academy for handing the Best Picture award to a fantasy film that truly defied my expectations. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moonlight – 2016

This movie was quite unexpected.  I really had no idea what the movie was about.  I had heard from friends who had seen it and everyone kept saying how good it was, but I didn’t really know the subject matter.  The movie actually had a fairly simple plot.  It was split into three acts, each of which told the story of a stage of a man’s life.  The first covers events when he is nine years old or so, the second when he is a teenager, and the third when he is an adult.

The film is based on a play that was written in 2003 that was called In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue, by Tarell Alvin McCraney.  The play was never produced.  But ten years later, director Barry Jenkins found the script when he was looking to make a new movie.  He brought it to the big screen and the rest is history.

Interesting note:  The original script for the stage-play told all three time lines at the same time, leaving it vague that the main characters in each of the three segments were actually the same character, a fact which was made clear about half way through the play.

In the first segment, called “Little”, we follow a young boy in the hood in Liberty City, Miami, that is first seen running from a gang of bullies.  We don’t know who he is or why he is running.  He is found by Juan, played by Mahershala Ali, the local drug dealer.  Juan takes pity on the boy and convinces him to go with him.  He feeds the boy and takes him to his own house in an affluent neighborhood.  While there, Juan’s girlfriend Teresa, played by Janelle Monae, shows him equal tenderness and gets the child to open up and tell them where he lives.

The boy is named Chiron, pronounced Shy-rone, played by Alex Hibbert.  He is a quiet boy who rarely speaks.  He tells his hosts that he does not want to go home.  But he responds to Juan and Teresa’s kindness.  Little spends the night at Juan’s house, and Juan takes him home to return him to his mother, Paula, played by Naomi Harris.  Paula becomes protective and is understandably angry that Little had not come home the previous night.

But as it turns out, Juan, being the local drug dealer, has been selling crack cocaine to Paula.  He bonds with Little, even going so far as to teach him how to swim.  Little bonds with him, seeing him as a father figure, or at the very least, a positive male role model.  The relationship that grows between them is actually quite touching.

But things fall apart when Juan and Paula argue.  Juan berates Paula for being a bad mother, and Paula lashes back, letting him know he has no business trying to raise her son.  After the confrontation, Paula goes home and takes out her anger on Little, screaming at him and calling him a faggot.  Apparently, Little is a homosexual.

I was surprised at this.  Hollywood has a habit of shying away from open homosexuality.  Gay characters are usually seen in films as either comic relief, prissy nice guys, flamboyant misfits, or tragic victims.  Little was none of those things.  And based on what is shown of him during this first stage of the movie, his sexuality was barely evident.  There was one scene in which he and the other boys are playing soccer and he feels like an outsider, standing apart from the group.  As he wanders off, his friend Kevin, played by Jaden Piner, follows him, and an awkwardly close moment comes and quickly goes.  It was subtle, and handled surprisingly well by the child actors.

In the end, Little goes to Juan and confronts him about two things.  First, he asks what a faggot is.  Juan and Teresa answer him in a kind and loving way, telling him that it is alright to be gay and that he should never let anyone put him down for it.  The second thing he asks Juan about is whether or not he sells drugs to his mother, Paula.  In shame, Juan admits the truth.  Little leaves as Juan breaks into tears.

Mahershala Ali did a fantastic job.  In fact, it was the only segment of the movie he was in, but it was enough for him to win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor.  He really turned in a great performance.  He was strong and loving towards Little, belying his tough exterior.  As the audience, we know that he is ultimately a bad man.  He is a drug dealer, a man who makes his money by ultimately ruining the lives of his clients.  And yet, we don’t hate him.  He shows such kindness and love to young Little, that we almost forget what he does for a living.  Ali really seemed to understand the character and I think he really deserved his award.

This first segment also did a great job establishing the characters.  In fact, I think it was why it was the longest of the three segments.  It was great set-up for the other two segments.  Chapter two is entitled Chiron.  The boy has grown to a teenager.  Apparently, Juan is dead, though we are never really told how or why.  Chiron still visits Teresa because there are times when his prostitute, crack-whore mother turns him out of the house.  Paula’s drug use is escalating and Chiron has dropped the name Little.  He is still an angry young man who doesn’t talk much.

This is the segment in which Naomie Harris really shined.  She really played the spiraling druggie well.  The range of emotions she displayed, especially the scene in which she pressures Chiron into giving her money so she can get her fix.  Harris is actually a very attractive woman, but her makeup artists did a number on her, making her look as if she was slightly crazed and aching for more crack.  Well done Naomie.  She was nominated for Best Supporting Actress, though she did not win.

Interesting note:  Harris spent time with actual crack addicts and watched interviews, which allowed her to give a more honest and accurate performance.

By this time, Chiron, played by Ashton Sanders, is in high school, and his sexuality seems to be common knowledge.  He is mercilessly teased and bullied.  It seems his only friend is Kevin, now played by Jharrel Jerome.  He is the kind of boy who likes to brag about the girls with whom he has had sex.  But he is more than a friend to Chiron.  In one of the movie’s most awkward and yet significant scenes, the two boys are on the beach, staring out at the water and smoking a joint.  The conversation turns strangely intimate and they kiss.  Then, Kevin jerks Chiron off.

It is a significant scene that seemed to come out of nowhere, but in retrospect, the signs had been there.  It is Chiron’s first experience in really exploring his sexuality.  And the scene was very tastefully done.  Nothing was explicitly shown.  In fact, the camera cut to a shot of the two boys sitting on the beach from behind.  All we can see is their backs, but we can clearly hear what is happening.

The next day, the worst happens.  The school bully, Terrel, played by Patrick Declie, pressures Kevin into beating up on Chiron.  Chiron allows it and when he is knocked down, Terrel and his friends beat him bloody.  The next day, he walks into class, puts down his book bag, picks up a chair, and smashes it over Terrel’s head.  Terrel does not get up.  And I have to admit that while it was the wrong thing to do, it was very satisfying to watch.  Chiron is arrested and taken to juvie.

The third and final segment, entitled Black, is short and sweet.  Chiron grows into an adult.  Played by Trevante Rhodes, he has taken the name Black, the nickname that Kevin had given him in school.  Black is now a drug dealer in Atlanta.  He has taken on a look that very much resembles Juan.  He seems to have plenty of money.  One day, from out of the blue, he gets a call from Kevin, now played by Andre Holland.  When asked why he called, Kevin can only say that he heard a song that reminded him of Chiron.

This segment was, by far the strangest of part of the movie.  It was good because the brief phone conversation inspires Black to visit his mother, who now resides in a drug rehabilitation facility.  The two reconcile and Black forgives Paula for being a mother with no love for her child.  Then Black drives back to Miami to see Kevin, who now works as a cook in a diner.  Their meeting is once again awkward.  They talk about their lives and Kevin expresses surprise at how Black’s life has turned out.  He also reveals that he has a son.

The two go back to Kevin’s place and Black confesses that he has never been intimate with another person since their experience on the beach.  The film ends with Kevin tenderly holding Black in his arms as the camera pans back.  The last thing we see before the credits start rolling is an image of the nine year-old Little, standing on the beach under the moonlight.  To me, it felt like the movie was saying that the big, tough drug dealer, Black, felt like an innocent child in the arms of the only man he had ever loved.  I found myself wishing that If he had taken on the role of Juan, Kevin could be his Teresa, though for some reason, it seemed very unlikely.  The ending of the narrative was just so vague.  For example, it was unclear whether Kevin was married to his child’s mother.  It was also unclear whether the two men might try their luck at a relationship.  Nothing said those questions had to be answered, but they felt like loose ends or unfinished business.

As you can see, the subject matter was just a little unusual for an Academy Award Best Picture Winner.  But I’m glad to see it covered in a tactful and subtle way.  The film seems to have a bit of social significance as well.  Homosexuality is a touchy subject, but so is racism.  Moonlight was important because it was a film with an all-black cast and an all-black crew.   You might remember the controversy over the previous year’s nominations.  There were complaints that black films and black actors were being purposefully overlooked by the all-white Academy.  I’m not going to comment on whether this was true or not, but many people believed that it was.

But I believe this was a film that deserved to win the coveted Best Picture Award.  It was a well-crafted script that dealt with serious, dramatic themes.  It was very well-cast and wonderfully acted, even by the children.  The actors for both Chiron and Kevin looked perfectly plausible as the same characters in different phases of their lives.  The dialogue was well-written and expertly delivered, especially during the deep and intense scenes of the third act.

Interesting note:  This was the year of the big Oscar Ceremony flub. Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway were the presenters for the Best Picture category, but they were given the wrong envelope.  Beatty opened it and was confused.  Not understanding what he was reading, he gave it to Dunaway, who did nothing more than glance at the card.  She blurted out that La La Land had won for Best Picture.  The cast and crew of La La Land came up to the stage and gave their acceptance speeches.  Then Beatty interrupted them and stopped everything to announce that there had been a mistake.  Moonlight was actually the winner!  The La La Land people were ushered off the stage to make way for the Moonlight cast and crew, who came up to give their acceptance speeches!  Everyone was giving speeches except for me.  I was speechless!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spotlight – 2015

The new winner for 2015 is a movie called Spotlight, so named because the name of the newspaper specialty column for the Boston Globe was called Spotlight.  The purpose of the column was to do in depth investigative reports on issues of social significance.  This historical film tells the story of how the 4 Spotlight reporters and the newspaper editors of the Globe shined their spotlight on one of the world’s best kept dirty secrets: the rampant child abuse and sexual assaults perpetrated on children within the Catholic Church.

And it wasn’t just that the child abuse was uncovered, but that the Catholic Church had known about the problem for many, many years, and had not only done nothing to stop the problem, but had official policies in place to cover up the scandals and protect the priests who were preying on young boys and girls.  Priests were never punished.  They were just moved to different parishes where they would sexually abuse more defenseless children.

I actually didn’t really know much about the issue, and so I did a little reading to see just how accurate the events in the film were.  Apparently they were incredibly accurate.  In fact, they were so accurate and were handled with such honesty and care by the filmmakers, that the Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Boston said that the “media’s investigative reporting on the abuse crisis instigated a call for the Church to take responsibility for its failings and to reform itself—to deal with what was shameful and hidden.”

Also, “a review published by the Catholic News Service called the film a ‘generally accurate chronicle’ of the Boston scandal, but objected to some of the portrayals and the film’s view of the Church.  On the Catholic News Service, auxiliary bishop of Los Angeles, Robert Barron, said that it is ‘not a bad movie’, as it shows that the wider community shares the responsibility for sexual abuse committed by priests, but that the film is wrong to insinuate that the Church has not reformed.”

Interesting Note:  One of the very few critics of the film said that one of the failings of the film was that it never made any mention of the psychologists who assured the Catholic Church that priests who had been caught molesting children had undergone sufficient therapy to be returned to their jobs.

It is important to mention those things before getting to other aspects of the film because the movie’s incredible accuracy and realism were what made it so impressive.  The movie is nearly educational about the scandal. The script made sense, was finely crafted, and did nothing to sensationalize the negative aspects of the situation.  They seemed to go out of their way to give the victims of the abuse, the Survivors as they were called, a real voice.  And it was done with true sensitivity and care.

But at the same time, the film did not focus on attacking the Catholic Church.  Instead, its focus was on the power of journalism.  While I was watching it, I was very much reminded of the 1976 Best Picture nominee, All the President’s Men with Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.  Both films were the stories of criminal conspiracies that were investigated and made public by journalists.  In fact, one of the film’s goals was to highlight the power of journalism in an age where the profession has been waning.

Josh Singer, one of the two screenwriters, was quoted as saying that, “This story isn’t about exposing the Catholic Church. We were not on some mission to rattle people’s faith. In fact, Tom (Tom McCarthy, the other screenwriter and the film’s director) came from a Catholic family. The motive was to tell the story accurately while showing the power of the newsroom – something that’s largely disappeared today. This story is important. Journalism is important, and there is a deeper message in the story.”

The story took place in 2001.  Many will remember the very public scandal that rocked the world back then, giving the Catholic Church and nearly all organized religion a black eye.  The movie had an ensemble cast with some pretty prominent names.  Michael Keaton played the Spotlight team’s editor, Walter “Robby” Robinson.  He worked under Ben Bradlee Jr., played by John Slattery.  The film starts off as the Globe’s chief editor is retiring, and a new editor, Marty Baron, played by Liev Schreiber, is hired.  The three other Spotlight reporters working under Robinson are Michael Rezendes, played by Mark Ruffalo, Sasha Pfeiffer, played by Rachel McAdams, and Matt Carrol, played by Brian d’Arcy James.

And there is your main cast.  The film gave pretty equal time to each of the actors, giving each of them their own little dramatic moments.  The only exception to that might have been Ruffalo.  His drama was, at times, more intense, and his story was followed a little more closely.  Ruffalo was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his work, and I really think he deserved it.  I have seen him in other films and he has always been good.  In Spotlight, he was phenomenal.  He seemed deeply invested in his role and extremely passionate about the subject matter.  I was really impressed with his performance.

However, there were also a number of other actors whose names are easily recognizable, all of whom did a fine job, as well.  Stanley Tucci played Mitchell Garabedian, an attorney who was representing the victims of sexual abuse without much apparent success, Billy Crudup as Eric McLeish, another attorney who also represented victims, but who was compliant with the cover-ups perpetrated by the Church, and Len Cariou, playing the part of Cardinal Law, the high Church official who knew about the abuse going on in the Boston area and was largely behind the cover-up conspiracy.

Interesting note:  I liked how the movie acknowledged the terrorist attacks of September 11 that took place during their investigations.  In fact, part of the plot was that the story about the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal was almost derailed because every reporter possible was reassigned to cover that more immediate story.

The wonderful thing about the plot was how easily it was able to draw me in to the story.  It really is a very disturbing subject matter.  It was made clear that yes, the Catholic Church and its backwards policies were the real criminals, but the blame did not stop there because it was a crime that everybody knew about, yet did nothing.  It made the point of saying that if you know about such a terrible crime and do nothing, then you are far from blameless.  In fact, the character of Robby had once had the opportunity to tackle the story years earlier, but had not.  He was honest enough to put his own name on the list of those who were responsible for letting the sexual abuse crimes continue.

The number of victims was staggering.  The Spotlight team is initially told to investigate a single priest who had been caught abusing children, and the cardinal who allegedly knew about it and did nothing.  But as the investigators dig deeper and uncover more evidence and hear more stories, the number of priests being investigated raises to 13.  Then, as they dig even deeper, the list of names raises to 87 clergymen in the Boston area alone.

The investigative team keeps pushing and keeps working, relentlessly pursuing the truth.  They conduct interview after interview, they file a lawsuit to gain access to sealed documents that prove the Cardinal’s involvement in the cover-ups.  The film does a really great job of following the investigative process.  Not only did I learn about the scandal, but I learned a little bit about how such investigative reporters do their jobs.

Now, I have to take a moment to mention the film’s score.  Right from the opening credits, the music set the tone of the entire movie.  It had a distinctly sad and melancholy feel.  It was heavy and a bit ominous.  It seemed to have an immediate sense of foreboding that never completely went away.  Then, during the scenes where the surviving victims began to tell their stories, the sadness and depression that they felt seemed to fit right into the music.  They complimented each other and made for some pretty effective story-telling.

And the stories that they told made a terrible sense.  Only a few full and detailed stories were told, but they were eerily realistic when describing how the abusive priests were able to manipulate the children into having sexual relations with them, and how they were able to callously prey on the children’s fragile emotions to prevent them from telling anybody about what was being done to them.

And why didn’t the victims generally say anything?  Because a priest is supposed to be a kind and benevolent authority.  If he says it is alright to do something, then it must be alright.  Then, after the abuse has started, shame is a powerful emotion that prevents the child from saying anything.

Interesting note:  The film did a wonderful job of looking at the scandal from a number of different viewpoints.  It examined it from the prospective of the Church, the lawyers, the reporters, the public, the victims, and even, in one case, a perpetrator.  In a small but memorable role, Richard O’Rourke, plays Father Paquin, a retired priest who not only freely admits to molesting children, he claims that he was the victim.

But the end of the film was like both a vindication and a victory for the victims.  The Spotlight team finally gathers enough evidence to run their story that not only goes after Cardinal Law, but the Catholic Church and its policy of ignoring the sexual abuse being perpetrated by hundreds of its priests.  As part of their article, they give the number of the Spotlight Office as a victim hot-line.  The morning the story runs, they arrive at the office, expecting strong legal opposition from the Catholic Church.  Instead, they are inundated with hundreds of calls from people all over the Boston area who want to come out of hiding and tell their stories, revealing that the abuse was even more widespread than they had even imagined.  The time was right and the story had to be told.  The Church was clearly guilty and had no defense.

After the screen went to black, but before the actual credits started rolling, the following text was shown on the screen:  “Over the course of 2002, the Spotlight team published close to 600 stories about the scandal.  249 priests and brothers were publicly accused of sexual abuse within the Boston Archdiocese.  The number of Survivors in Boston is estimated to be well over 1,000.  In December of 2002, Cardinal Law resigned from the Boston Archdiocese.  He was reassigned to the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, one of the highest ranking Roman Catholic Churches in the world.  Major abuse scandals have been uncovered in the following places…”  The names of 206 cities around the world were then listed.  I think screenwriter Josh Singer did his job.  He showed just how powerful real journalism can be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) – 2015

Well, another year has gone by, full of good movies and bad.  This year, the one that rose to the top and grabbed the brass ring was a strange one, to be sure.  Birdman was a good movie.  I’ll say that right off the bat.  It had a good story, though eclectic.  The acting was above average.  The music was, at times, annoying, but effective (I’ll get to that in a bit.)  And the ending was… hard to understand.

The film was trying very hard to be “artsy”, and on some levels, it succeeded.  The story was easy to follow, and was punctuated by the self-destructive ravings of the protagonist’s imagination, which was good, because that was where most of the film’s drama came from.  It had a handful of special effects that gave the whole thing a supernatural feel, though once I figured out that they were all in the main character’s head, a little bit of that magic went away.

Birdman starred Michael Keaton, who is a master of his craft.  He is always an incredibly good actor, and this movie is no exception.  He has been working pretty consistently since 1978, proving time and time again what he is capable of on the silver screen.  Here he played the role of Riggan Thomson, a washed up Hollywood actor with a notable career behind him.  His most famous role was, of course, Birdman, a costumed super-hero.

But Birdman is a thing of the past, existing now, only in Riggan’s mind.  His ex-wife, Sylvia, played by Amy Ryan, and his daughter, Samantha, played by Emma Stone see glimpses of Riggan’s dangerous Birdman persona, but dismiss it as either the vanity of an actor, or the selfishness of a bad husband.  Neither of them suspect that it is actually a kind of psychosis caused by the man’s failed career and the nostalgic remnants of his glory days.

The cleverly written script had flights of fancy that take place in Riggan’s mind as he listens to the voice of Birdman, telling him what to do and how to behave.  To me, it was like his subconscious, goading and manipulating him to be the superhero of his own life.  During these episodes, he has the power of telekinesis and flight, able to throw things around the room using the power of his mind, or soar above the streets of New York.  But the film also makes the point that when he does these things, he is really just physically tearing the room apart, or imagining that he can fly.

The plot takes place in a theatre in the Big Apple.  Riggan is trying to revive his stalled career by putting on a play based on Raymond Carver’s short story, What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.  The cast of the play includes the young and upcoming actress, Lesley Truman, played by Naomi Watts, Riggan’s girlfriend, Laura Alburn, played by Andrea Riseborough, and a talented but narcissistic method actor, Mike Shiner, played by Edward Norton.  The final member of the film’s cast is Riggan’s lawyer and best friend, Jake, played by Zach Galifianakis.

Interesting note:  When the script was still in the early stages, Keaton was not in director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s mind to play the lead, but by the time the script was finalized, there was no longer any option.  In his opinion, it had to be Keaton.

As the rehearsals for his play continue and as it goes into previews, Riggan’s cast becomes more and more difficult to work with.  At the same time, his recovering drug addict daughter displays an incredible lack of support that borders on outright scorn.  His girlfriend is playing mind games with him, and Mike the method actor seems to be going out of his way to ruin everything.  But it was the ending of the play on opening night that brought the house down.

You see, in the stage show, Riggan’s character commits suicide by shooting himself in the head.  And we, the viewers see it coming.  The actor’s questionable mental state cannot possibly survive all the negative energy, the setbacks, the lack of support, and the sheer stress of surviving.  So on opening night, when we see him grab a real gun instead of the stage prop, we are horrified, though not surprised.

But what really happened when the dreaded moment finally arrived, took me by surprise.  He didn’t kill himself.  Instead, he shot his nose off.  The next scene shows him in the hospital wearing facial bandages that oddly resemble a superhero mask.  But it was the last few seconds of the film that ultimately left me confused.

So I get that he had proved his point.  He was validated by a good review of his performance which applauded his real ending.  He says his farewell to his Birdman persona, who is, for once, silent.  Then he goes to the window and sees birds gathered on the window ledge.  He climbs out onto the ledge with them and then the scene shifts to show his daughter entering the room.  She is confused by his absence and calls his name a few times.  Then she goes to the window, looks down at the street, looks up into the sky, and smiles.  Roll credits!

OK, so the big question is, what actually happened?  Did he commit suicide?  Did he fly into the sky?  It was clear that he was no longer in the room, but if he had been dead on the street, then Samantha would have had reacted with horror.  Based on her smiling reaction, though, we have to assume that she saw him flying.  But by that point, I had already been convinced that all Riggan’s supernatural Birdman powers were only in his mind.  And besides that, he had said goodbye to Birdman only a moment before, indicating that his self-destructive impulses had left him.  It left me confused.

But I think that was the director’s intent.  It was intentionally left open-ended, and while that can often be an effective way to end a movie, I don’t think it worked that well for this one.  I would have liked to see one of two things instead.  First he could have said goodbye to Birdman, and then made his peace with his family.  The gunshot wound could have been an accidental catharsis for Riggan.  Or second, we could have ended the film with him actually killing himself at the end of the stage show.  It would certainly have given the film a more poignant and defined ending.

So, I didn’t particularly care for the nebulous ending, but it’s alright.  There were some very distinct things about Birdman that set it apart from most other movies.  The three that I’d like to focus on were the acting, the music, and the directing style.

The acting was all above par.  Keaton, Stone, and Norton each stood out to me as particularly good.  Keaton has always been a good actor.  His performance was deep without being overdone or melodramatic.  He has the feel of the common man about him that makes him easy to identify with.  Stone’s dramatic scenes were well acted, but I have the sense that her performance was enhanced a bit by her incredibly well-written dialogue.  And then there was Norton, who has always been a good actor, although, in this film, he seemed like he wasn’t really acting at all.  He was playing himself, which, fortunately, was exactly what the character called for.  He was a very believable over-the-top jerk.

Next I’ll discuss the music a bit.  The soundtrack was a very unusual one, to be sure.  First, there were a few well-known classical pieces of music that cropped up every now and then, but it was the film’s original score that was so unique.  I’m referring to the fact that it was composed and played on a single instrument: the drums.  There were no melodic passages, no easily recognizable themes.  It was just a single drummer on a set of drums.

Now, supposedly, each character had his or her own rhythmic theme, but I guess my ear isn’t trained enough in percussion instruments to hear them.  It just sounded like banging noise to my ears.  In fact, there were times, usually when Riggan was having a Birdman episode and his sanity was slipping just a little bit, when the disjointed and chaotic score got in the way of the dialogue.  I’m pretty sure that was on purpose, but by the end of the movie, it got old.  Other than that, the drums added to the confusion and hard edged drama taking place on the screen.  In that respect, the score was effective, if not enjoyable.

Interesting note:  Jazz drummer Antonio Sanchez composed and recorded the film’s entire score.  He and director Gonzalez Inarritu felt snubbed by the Academy when the score for Birdman was not nominated for Best Original Score.  They appealed to the Academy, but were still denied on the grounds that “…the film also contains over a half an hour of non-original (mostly classical) music cues that are featured very prominently in numerous pivotal moments in the film…”

The third thing about the film which I have to applaud was the style in which it was filmed.  What I mean by that is that most of the film was shot in long takes.  There were a number of reasons for the choice, but the one that seems the most obvious to me is that Gonzalez Inarritu wanted the audience to feel as if they were there in the room with the actors, and in real life, there are no cuts between takes, no quick scene changes, and no switching back and forth between characters.  It also had the added effect of mimicking the live performances of a stage show, like the one that Riggan and his troupe of actors were in.

This actually made the jobs of the cast of actors much more difficult than in a regular film.  The long takes forced them to rehearse and rehearse a scene to get their timing perfect.  They had to memorize long lines of dialogue.  They also had to depend much more heavily on the competence and skill of the entire cast and crew to make it work.  If they were filming a 6 minute sequence without a cut, then a mistake in the final minute could ruin the entire take.  Also, the camera men and crew had to know their blocking just as much as the actors.  It is an incredibly difficult way to film a movie, but it succeeded in giving the movie a very unique style.

Birdman was a good film and I enjoyed it.  But I’ll be honest it is not one of my favorite Best Picture winners.  I think it was trying too hard to be clever and artsy, which, for me, detracted from its overall effectiveness.  It was good, but not as good as it thinks it was.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 Years a Slave – 2013

This was one of those profound movies that displayed in graphic details the depths of human cruelty.  Films like this are sometimes hard to watch, not only because of the scenes of violence and torture, but because of the severe injustices being portrayed.  This film was about the slavery that was prevalent in 1841, and it showed many, though I’m sure not all, of the horrible conditions that went along with the practice of slavery.

The movie starred Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon Northup, a free colored man in Saratoga Springs, New York.  He is shown to be an upstanding and respected member of his community, a good husband and a loving father.  It was important to show his relationship with his community, because it would have bearing on the plot later on in the film.  His wife and children go away on a planned trip, leaving him alone.  He is a skilled fiddle player and makes his living as a hired musician.

Interesting note:  When first offered the role, Ejiofor refused.  When director Steve McQueen made the offer, he described it as the role of the actor’s lifetime.  This actually scared Ejiofor away, because he thought he was not ready for such a high profile role and what it would mean to his career.  Once he accepted, he actually learned to play the violin in preparation.  He also immersed himself in the Southern plantation culture.

But then the pleasant story turns very dark as Solomon is hired by two strangers to play his fiddle in Washington D. C.  He agrees to go and while there, he is drugged, put in chains and sold into slavery.  He is transported to New Orleans and given a new name.  Along with him are other free black citizens that have also been kidnapped, three of whom are a mother with her two children.

I had never given the matter of slavery much thought.  I knew that Southern slaves were treated as less than dogs.  I knew that they were bought and sold as property.  But I had never imagined that free citizens were ever abducted from within our own borders to be made into slaves.  The concept is just unthinkable.

Imagine being chained and taken away from your life against your will.  Imagine being forced work hard every day from sun-up to sun-down for the benefit of others.  Imagine being beaten and tortured at the whims of your fellow men.  Imagine having to call another human being master.

To have been born into a life of slavery would have been bad enough.  But to have been born a free man and then to have such a thing happen to you would have to have been a hundred times worse.  It made the film that much more horrifying to watch.  Ejiofor did a wonderful job and was so very real and convincing in his portrayal.  The scene where he wakes up in chains really drew me in.  I was horrified with him, though I knew just from the title of the movie what had to happen.  The disbelief and despair on his face was incredibly well done.

A small cameo by one of my favorite actors, Paul Giamatti, surprised me.  He plays the slaver who sells him to his new master, a man by the name of William Ford, played by Benedict Cumberbatch.  He is actually a kind master, if you can call any slave owner kind, though it is important to note that he callously buys the mother of the two children without buying the children.  They are cruelly torn from her and she never sees them again.

Now, not to belittle the events that take place in the film, which are based on true events, I do have to delve a little bit into the accuracy of the film.  What I found made a certain amount of sense.  The film was, for the most part, true to the autobiographical book, Twelve Years a Slave, Written by the real Northup.  However, the book itself may not have been entirely accurate.  You see, the book was written while Northup was working with the abolitionist movement.  Some of the events may have been sensationalized for the purpose of the furthering the abolitionist cause.  However, that being said, here is the only great inaccuracy that historians have been able to find.

As the abducted slaves are being transported by boat to New Orleans, one of the ship’s crew is drunk and wanders down to the slave pen to rape a woman.  One of the other slaves tries to defend her.  The boatman is ready with a knife and stabs the slave to death.  This was not in Northup’s book and probably would not have happened.  Slaves were a valuable commodity and the boatman did not own them.  He would probably have been financially liable for the death.  But from what I found in my research, the rest of the film was pretty true to life.

After an altercation with one of his white masters, Solomon is sold to a new master.  He is Edwin Epps, played by Michael Fassbender.  Epps is a cruel master who abuses his slaves and keeps them in deplorable conditions.  He singles out a female slave named Patsey, played by Lupita Nyong’o, for her skill at picking cotton and her beauty.  He repeatedly rapes her and beats her, sometimes simultaneously.  His wife, Mary, played by Sarah Paulson, quickly develops an intense hatred of her and demands that she be sold.  Ebbs refuses.

Nyong’o’s performance was enough to earn her the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress.  She really played the part well.  There is one scene in particular in which she comes to Solomon to beg him to take her out into the swamp and kill her.  He refuses, saying that he would not have the stain of murder on his soul.  They both did such a great job.  It made the whole whipping scene near the end of the movie that much more poignant.

I also have to give a special nod to Fassbender.  He played the bad guy so well.  Not only was he cruel and sadistic towards his slaves, but he was self-righteous about it, believing that such treatment of black people was his duty according to the Word of God.  Which, by the way, how messed up is that?  I was impressed with his performance, even though I hated the character.

Ultimately, the entire movie was well cast.  Everyone played their parts well.  There was another cameo by one of my favorite African-American actresses, Alfre Woodard.  She played the favored mistress of a fellow plantation owner who had black slaves waiting on her.  It was a small but memorable role.  Brad Pitt, who also was one of the film’s producers, had a small put pivotal role near the end of the movie.  He played Samuel Bass, a white man who is contracted to build a gazebo for Epps.  He is sympathetic to the plight of the black slaves.  He befriends Solomon who asks him to return to New York and bring his papers of freedom.  This, he does, which allows Solomon to be finally freed and returned to his wife and family.  Bass claimed to be Canadian, but Pitt made him look Amish.  Also, the blonde highlights in Pitt’s hair looked very out of place for 1841.  But never-mind that.

Another aspect of the film that I have to mention is the cinematography.  The majority of the film takes place in the Deep South.  Some of the transitional shots were of the natural beauty inherent in the Louisiana Bayou.  The sunsets and sunrises were gorgeous with the beautiful trees indigenous to the region.

The overall message of the film was one that is often used in dramas of this nature: hope in the midst of horrific injustice.  Time and again, I wondered if I would have had the will to continue to hope.  Would I have been able to keep going under those kinds of terrible conditions, or would I have given way to despair?  I don’t know.  All I know is that I am glad such practices are, as far as I know, no longer tolerated in the United States.  As for the rest of the world, I sadly have no doubt that such things still happen.

Nobody deserves to be treated like a slave, no matter what the circumstances.  So perhaps movies like this are important.  They are important as reminders of that shameful part of our history; important so that history would not repeat itself.  There are still cruel men in the world today.  There is still racism and hatred.  There are still men who are capable of treating other human beings as animals.

And finally, I have to mention one last thing.  This was actually something about the film that I didn’t particularly care for.  The film was called 12 Years a Slave.  So, apparently, he was a slave for 12 years.  But that is the only indication in the movie as to how much time he spent as a slave.  There was never any mention of the passage of time.  How long had he been a slave when he was sold to Epps?  How long had he been a slave when he met Patsey?  I think that this kind of information would have made me more engaged in the story.  And if you think about it, the plot is told through Solomon’s perspective.  He was an educated man.  He would have noted the passage of time like anyone who was taken away from his family.

I can’t even begin to imagine what it would be like to be in his situation, but the movie told a story that did a good job of putting me there.  It never shied away from the graphic details of the atrocities that actually happened.  In fact, I would guess that some of them were toned down a bit, though the whipping scene was pretty horrific.  When it showed Patsey’s back afterword, it was terribly shredded.  I imagine that performing such a scene would take an emotional toll on an actor.  So I’ll give another nod to both Fassbender and Nyong’o for a job well done.

The film won two Academy Awards aside from Best Picture.  Nyong’o won for Best Supporting Actress, and John Ridley won for Best Adapted Screenplay.  In addition, it was nominated for 6 more awards:  Best Director for McQueen, Best Actor for Ejiofor, Best Supporting Actor for Fassbender, Best Production Design, Best Costume Design and Best Film Editing.

Interesting note:  This was the first time a film that was directed by an African-American has ever won the Best Picture Award.

Another interesting note:  Northup’s original book sold very poorly when it was first published in 1853.  Now, however, that it has been turned into an Academy Award Best Picture winner, the book’s sales have put it on the bestseller list.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Argo – 2012

I really liked this film.  The name of the game is suspense!  The movie is stuffed full of intensity and nerve-wracking tension.  It is so masterfully done that even though you know the ending, you are still cringing in fear for the characters.  You see, it is a historical drama about an event that was all over the news.  The 1979 hostage crisis in Iran was an event that shocked the world and had millions of people hoping and praying for the safety of the 55 hostages in the American Embassy in Iran.

The film starts out with a voice-over monologue along with some images drawn like story–boards for a movie, mixed in with historical photographs.  The content of the voice-over was a perfect opening for the film.  It is a little long, but I feel it bears repeating in its entirety here:

“This is the Persian Empire, known today as Iran.  For 2,500 years this land was ruled by a series of Kings known as Shahs.  In 1950 the people of Iran elected Mohammed Mosaddeq, a secular Democrat as Prime Minister.  He nationalized British and U.S. petroleum holdings, returning Iran’s oil to its people.  But in 1953 the U.S. and Great Brittan engineered a coup d’etat that deposed Mosaddeq and installed Reza Pahlavi as Shah.  The young Shah was known for opulence and excess.  His wife was rumored to bathe in milk, while the Shah had his lunches flown in by Concord from Paris.  The people starved.  The Shah kept power through his ruthless internal police the SAVAK.  An era of torture and fear began.  He then began a campaign to westernize Iran, enraging a mostly traditional Shiite population.  In 1979 the people of Iran overthrew the Shah.  The exiled cleric Ayatollah Khamenei returned to rule in Iran.  He descended into score-settling, death squads and chaos.  Dying of cancer, the Shah was given asylum in the U.S.  The Iranian people took to the streets outside the U.S. Embassy, demanding that the Shah be returned, tried and hanged.”

Interesting note:  There is a slight inaccuracy in that opening narration.  Pahlavi was already the Shah when the coup d’etat took place.  In fact, it was he who dismissed Mosaddeq to begin the coup.  But enough of the history lesson.

The film then concentrates on the 6 individuals who escaped the U.S. Embassy and hid in the residence of the Canadian Ambassador in Iran, Ken Taylor, played by Victor Garber.  Tony Mendez, played by Ben Affleck is the C.I.A. operative who conceives of a rescue plan and is sent in to get them out.

The plan is to fabricate a science-fiction film from Hollywood called Argo.  Then Mendez would go to Iran, claiming to be a Canadian filmmaker scouting for filming locations.  He would meet with the 6 escapees and give them the identities of a film crew, then fly out with them using fake passports issued by Canada.

Now, I’m going to say right up-front, when this movie first came out, one of the biggest complaints was that it ignored the 52 hostages that were held in the Embassy for 444 days.  Let me dispel that argument right now.  First of all, the movie wasn’t about them.  It was about the 6 who got out.  Why would it focus at all on the 52?  And second, the rest of them were mentioned several times!  Their fate was divulged in the little blurbs at the end of the movie, telling what happened to the characters.  Attention was paid!  If the movie were about them, it would have spent considerably more time on their terrifying situation.

Ben Affleck actually did a good job.  Somehow he has earned himself a bit of a reputation in Hollywood as a bad actor, probably in association with a movie called Gili, widely considered one of the worst films ever made.  But this was a role in which he seemed very comfortable.  He grew a beard for the role and it looked good on him.  I thought he really did a good job and had no complaints about his performance.  The only thing I will say is that it was part of his character to keep his emotions suppressed in the interest of keeping everyone calm, so he didn’t have to stretch himself as much as other characters in that respect.

Bryan Cranston played his boss at the C.I.A., Jack O’Donnell.  Cranston did a fantastic job.  It would have been so easy to make the character the stereotypical hard-nosed boss without much depth.  But Cranston brought a measure of humanity and humor to the role that was refreshing.

John Goodman and Alan Arkin played John Chambers and Lester Siegel, a Hollywood make-up artist and a film producer, both of whom were in on the plan.  They did everything you would have to do to get a movie produced.  They got the rights to the script, started an advertisement campaign, went through casting calls, did a publicized reading, had posters made up, and drew up story-boards, all the while knowing that the movie itself was a complete fake with the sole purpose of retrieving the 6 American citizens hiding in Iran.

Interesting note:  According to Tony Mendez, the fake production office known as Studio Six was so convincing in the real-life Argo plan that even several weeks after it folded and the Iranian rescue was complete, “we had received twenty-six scripts.  One was from Stephen Spielberg.”

Where the film’s masterfully crafted tension cam in is that we learn that there is a race of sorts going on.  The American diplomats had shredded as many of their files as they could so that they wouldn’t fall into the hands of their captors.  The Iranians had sweat-shop children going through basket after basket of shredded paper, reconstructing the personnel files to find out whether there were any Americans that they were not holding as hostages.  The rescue plan had to be executed before the identities of the 6 escapees could be determined.

The tension was slowly built throughout the entire film.  Even though the outcome was just a matter of history that anyone who lived through that crisis would already know, the climax of the movie was exciting and made by heart race.  Several of the details were altered, maybe a time line or two sped up or slowed down to make the final escape one that was close cut and nerve-wracking.

Interesting note:  Apparently the 6 diplomats were not in as much danger as the movie depicts, though that was another detail that the Hollywood movie machine played up, despite reality.  Not the first time, and certainly not the last time that has happened.

The 6 Americans trying to escape Iran were, for the most part, fairly unknown actors, with one exception.  Tate Donovan played the part of Robert Anders.  He served as the leader of the group of diplomats.  In addition, actors Clea DuVall, Christopher Denham, Scoot McNairy, Kerry Bishe and Rory Cochrane played the rest of the diplomats.  I mention their names because they each brought a different dynamic to the group.

Most notably, McNairy’s character, Joe Stafford was the man who created even more tension, being too afraid to participate in the escape plan.  He also carried a bit of the film’s emotional content, confessing that he felt certain that they would all die.

Now, one of the most amazing parts of the movie was the fact that, in regards to casting and make-up, special attention was given to the look of each character.  They went out of their way to make the actors look like the real people who were involved in the events depicted in the movie.  And they really did a great job.  In fact, at the end of the movie, they made a point of showing the actors along-side historical archive photos of the people they were portraying.  The likenesses were remarkably similar.  In fact, I believe the only three main actors who this did not happen for were Affleck, Arkin and Cranston.

As I usually do when dealing with a historical drama, I must take a quick look at any glaring historical inaccuracies.  Small ones are forgivable, but big ones have to be at least mentioned.  Of course, Argo is only loosely based on the Iran Hostage Crisis.  The character of John Sheardown and his wife were completely left out of the movie. Sheardowns was a Canadian Immigration Official, at whose residence several of the American Diplomats stayed.  In the film, they all stayed together at the Taylor residence.

Another inaccuracy that should be noted is the fact that the movie makes a point of saying that when the 6 diplomats were on the run, they went to both the British Embassy and the New Zealand Embassy looking for asylum, but both countries turned them away.  This is completely untrue.  In fact, they spent one night with the Brits before moving to the safer location with the Canadians.  The New Zealanders actually drove the 6 diplomats to the airport on the day of their departure.

In reality, there was no real tension at all.  There was no great race to leave the country.  There were no problems getting past guards at the airport.  There were no police cars chasing the airplane down the runway.  The whole rescue operation was not very nearly cancelled at any point.  But hey, this is Hollywood.  Hollywood is rarely in the business of telling the absolute truth.  It is a filmmaker’s job to entertain an audience using all the tools at their disposal such as dramatic and emotional tension, suspense, and intrigue.  If they had strictly stuck to reality, it would have been too dull a story to warrant a movie at all.

And finally, there is one last inaccuracy that I need to mention.  The movie implies that the entire rescue operation was planned and executed by the C.I.A., but it was really the Canadians, working with Tony Mendez, who apparently did 90% of the planning, organizing, and execution of the rescue.  The biggest thanks of all should have gone to Ken Taylor and the Canadians who orchestrated most of the operation.

But like I said, this is Hollywood.  The movie was full of suspense and was exciting to watch.  So, it did its job, and did it well.  This is definitely a movie that deserved the Oscar for Best Picture.

 

The Artist – 2011

The Artist is a gimmick that was designed to remind the Academy of the early days of Hollywood.  It was a black and white silent film.  In fact, it was the first black and white Best Picture winner since Schindler’s List in 1993, and the first silent film since the very first Best Picture winner in 1928, Wings.  It was tailor made to touch the hearts of any movie buff who enjoyed films from the silent era.  It was a blatant attempt to give them feelings of intense nostalgia.

And darn it if it didn’t work.  The artist was nominated for 10 awards and won 5 of them.  In addition to Best Picture, it won for Best Director (Michel Hazanavicius), Best Actor (Jean Dujardin), Best Costume Design and Best Original Score.  So, it wasn’t a sweep, but it certainly took home its share of Oscars.

The film starred Dujardin as George Valentin, a big Hollywood star in the era of silent movies. He was American Royalty in its truest sense.  He had everything: money, cars, a chauffer, a mansion, thousands of adoring fans and a beautiful wife.  Unfortunately, he also had a number of traits that are sometimes typical of someone in such a position.  He had an enormous ego and a callous disregard for most other people that bordered on just plain mean.  True, he had a thousand-watt smile that was perfect for a silent film star, but he only turned it on when the public could see him.

He had all the graces and flaws that one might expect of a Hollywood superstar, which is why, as he is signing autographs, a young and unknown actress literally bumps into him.  By today’s standards, such an accidental physical contact would be ignored, but in 1927, apparently, it is enough to make people gasp and recoil.  But Valentin plays it off as something forgivable.  He even poses for several pictures with the beautiful young stranger.

The woman’s name is Peppy Miller, played by Berenice Bejo.  And, of course, the movie that Valentin is promoting is nearly forgotten because all the papers want to know is: Who’s that girl?  The next day Peppy turns up at the movie studio and she turns heads with her bright smile and her talent for dancing.  But Al Zimmer, played by John Goodman, the director of Valentin’s films, is upset at Peppy for overshadowing his new movie and refuses to work with her until Valentin vouches for her.  Valentin is moderately attracted to her despite the fact that he is married to the beautiful Doris Valentin, played by Penelope Ann Miller.

Not long after that, as Peppy begins to get noticed, the real conflict of the film makes itself known.  Zimmer calls Valentin into a private screening room to show the latest craze in filmmaking: talkies.  The silent era was dying and sound was starting to take over Hollywood.  But a prideful Valentin laughs in Zimmer’s face and walks out.

So, as you can see, the first half of the movie doesn’t really have much of a plot.  It is simple and fairly dull.  I am not a scholar of the silent film era, but it seems to me that in order for a movie, silent or otherwise, to be good there has to be a story content that hooks you in from the very beginning.  Without that, a film just doesn’t keep my interest for very long.  But maybe I am looking at the subject with too modern a sensibility.

I sometimes wonder how well the first Best Picture winner, Wings, would do at the box office if it were re-written for the audiences of today.  Give it dialogue to make it more dramatic, color to make it more visually stunning, and maybe a science-fiction setting to appeal to a modern audience.  I wonder how well it would do.  I think it would do quite well because the story was a good one.  But if you take the movie The Artist and gave it the same kind of treatment, I don’t think it would do as well.  The plot was just too paper-thin.  For me, the movie was a gimmick that wore off after the first half an hour.

The second half of the movie has much more substance and some deeper drama.  It follows Peppy’s rise to stardom as she embraces the talkies, and Valentin’s decline into poverty as he refuses to do the same.  But even then, the plot moves slowly and not very much happens.  Valentin is fired by the studio, his wife leaves him and he loses everything.  However, Peppy is still in love with him and she helps him as much as she can.

This is what justified the film and made me understand why it received all the awards that were given to it.  This is where the characters became a little deeper and more believable.  This is where reality stepped into the picture and I became much more invested in the characters.  Eventually, Valentin attempts to commit suicide and is saved, in true silent film era fashion, by his dog.  And we can’t have a movie like this without a happy ending.

I can’t really rate the performances of the actors based on the first half of the movie.  But the second half gave me plenty on which to comment.  Dujardin and Bejo both did a fantastic job.  Dujardin was wonderful to watch as he spiraled down into the depths of depression and self-hate.  But to me, it was Bejo who really stood out as a great actress.  Peppy became a very conflicted character.  She was riding the high and exciting wave of her own stardom, but her love for Valentin and her desire to help a man who, on several occasions, refused her help, afraid to accept the death of the silent film era, was a clear and somewhat compelling contradiction.  It was very well played and I enjoyed watching her.

Some other notable actors in the film were John Goodman and Penelope Ann Miller.  The scene in which Doris tries to tell George that she is unhappy in their marriage was very well acted.  Miller displayed some of the strongest emotional power in the film.  I actually felt bad for her character and when she turned on the tears, I nearly felt some myself.  She impressed me.

Zimmer was a bit of a two dimensional character, but Goodman is such a good actor that he made it more than what was on the pages of the script.  He has a very expressive face that worked quite well for a silent film.  In fact, it occurs to me that all the actors had to re-learn how to act for a film format that hasn’t been used for over 80 years.

Another actor that stood out was James Cromwell, playing the part of Clifton, Valentin’s chauffer.  He really looked perfect for the part and he portrayed a very loyal and likable character.  Well done Cromwell!

There were several things about the movie that I found very effective.  First of all, was the music.  The original score had to cover the entire film, over 1 hour and 40 minutes. Granted, there was a little music borrowed from other films such as Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo and Alberto Ginastera’s “Estancia.”  But it was always appropriate to the action taking place on the screen.

And finally, there are two scenes in particular that touched me and really caught my attention as being very well done.  They stick in my memory and gave an extra dimension to an otherwise, let’s face it, monotone film.  The first was just a very simple scene in which Peppy sneaks into Valentin’s dressing room to thank him for vouching for her with Zimmer.  She writes a “thank you” note on his mirror but as she is leaving, she sees his tux coat hanging on a rack.  She approaches it almost shyly and hugs it as if he is wearing it.  She smells it and closes her eyes, imagining him to be standing in front of her.  Then she puts her right arm into the sleve and wraps it around her left side.  The simple illusion of the tuxedo sleeve against her gown is remarkable effective.  It suddenly appeared as though someone else was caressing her and the look of bliss on her face was priceless.  It was actually a magical little scene.

Interesting note:  Apparently this little scene was an homage to a scene in 7^th Heaven, a silent movie that was nominated for Best Picture in 1928, losing to Wings.

The other scene is the one in which Valentin is starting to realize that talkies are the future of cinema and the silent film era is nearly over.  The music stops and all is silent.  He is drinking and when he puts the glass on the table, you hear the sound effect as clear as day.  It caught me off guard.  It catches Valentin off guard as well.  He picks up the glass and puts it down again only to hear the sound again.  It is as if he has never heard a sound in his life.  He starts hearing sounds all around him.  But when he starts screaming into the mirror, trying to hear the sound of his own voice, no sound at all can be heard.  Finally he sees a feather fall to the ground and the impact is so loud that he grabs his ears in pain.  It was a very effective scene.

Something else that I could not help but notice was the fact that the film went out of its way to be a black and white silent film.  But all the films from that early era had a somewhat darker and grainier quality to the picture.  This effect could have been easily achieved with today’s technology.  However, the clear and smooth quality of the film never let me forget that this was a very modern film.  This was neither good nor bad.  It was just a decision made by the director, but it caught my attention.

Interesting note:  There wasn’t a single zoom shot in the entire film, specifically because the technology for zoom shots did not exist at that point in film making.  In addition, the movie was shot at a slower frame rate than most modern films, making the action on the screen appear to be slightly faster than normal, just like in the silent era.  All this attention to details in mimicking the style, and yet…

All in all, it was a well-made movie, but the plot was a little lack-luster.  The acting was good, but the black and white, silent film format was, in my opinion, a cheesy gimmick to remind me of something I’m glad we have moved beyond.  Yes, it was an homage to the work that was done in the early days of filmmaking which made all modern films possible.  I get that.  I just don’t know if it was Best Picture material.